Is picky eating a problem? Well, yes and no. We have all had parents come to us with concerns about their child’s picky eating. At this point in history, we may feel grateful not to be facing another of the myriad of our child patients who are seriously overweight. So, should we just tell parents to not worry about it?

About 18% of young children are picky eaters; 7% of older children, even adolescents, are still picky eaters. The lack of variety eaten can limit growth and nutrition — in particular iron, and vitamins A and C — and limit them socially at older ages because people think they’re weird because they don’t eat typical foods. The crying, tantrums, gagging, even vomiting at the sight of certain foods that may be part of picky eating is hard on families and may make them all less welcome as guests/friends. We know that if eating issues are not addressed early, they tend to persist. For example, the fruit variety eaten is actually higher at 27 months than it is at 60 months without intervention. The fruit variety eaten at 2 years of age actually predicts what the child will eat when they’re 6-8 years old. About 40% of irregular eaters at age 5 are still irregular eaters at age 14.
 

Practical Advice for Dealing With Picky Eating

There are some things you may not know about this common condition that could change your approach. Infants in the first year of life will naturally turn away from the bottle or breast when sated. But babies need to learn to eat solids, and it is actually stressful. Pushing food out is their first response. If progressively more textured foods are not provided between 6 and 10 months of age, the baby may struggle with accepting solids subsequently. Babies around 8 months want to grab everything, including the spoon, and want to feed themselves. If parents push the spoon and thwart participation, refusal to be fed — the so-called Battle of the Spoon, the most common reason for stalled weight gain at this age — may ensue. Instead, caregivers need to give the baby his/her own spoon to hold, and allow finger feeding, no matter how messy! The parent’s job is to provide healthy food in reasonable amounts, and the child’s job is to eat what they want of it.

But, often suddenly, typically around 21 months, children may become picky. What happened? This is an age of perceiving differences and developing a strong sense of autonomy. Foods recently eaten without protest may now be dramatically rejected. Whole food categories or textures (think slimy) may be refused, especially vegetables and meat. Food cut in their preferred shape, their favorite brand, or delivered in the same cup may be demanded with alternatives refused. Foods that touch together on the plate or are covered with sauce may cause a tantrum. Some of this pickiness may reflect sensitive or intense temperament. Some food preferences are cultural (borscht?), or familial (no fruit), but others are nearly universal because of the heightened sensitivity of taste at this age (spinach, for example, as it contains oxalic acid).

Young children refusing foods can have their autonomy honored by providing only healthy foods on a low table to eat as they please without commentary, but continue seating them with family for meals, allowing exit (no return) from that meal if they choose. The desire to be social and removal of pressure results in eating regular meals within a week in most cases.

Any of these new reactions may persist for years. In most cases, picky eaters get adequate nutrition and grow fine without any intervention. Removing the power struggle or parental discord is generally more important than getting the child to accept a few more foods. Keep in mind that children may have picky eating because mealtime interactions are aversive or in order to get attention or a special menu — both reinforcers to avoid.

But there are some ways food selectivity can be reduced. Modeling eating a variety of foods can make a difference but is best done without comment (seen as pressure). Seeing heroes or peers eat the food that might otherwise be undesired by a picky eater (recall Popeye, who ate his spinach), is based on this. Having a peer come over who will eat that specific food (Mikey likes it!) can be very helpful.

There are other practices that can improve picky eating and are good general feeding advice. Maintaining three meals and three snacks, always at the table with adult company, can reduce grazing on perhaps tasty and filling foods or drinks (milk being the worst) that replace the drive for eating less desired foods once seated. Providing the child a multivitamin can help parents avoid showing panic or pressure when working to increase food variety. All the foods prepared for the family should be put on the plate to increase exposure, along with at least one item the child is known to eat. Family meals have many benefits (eg, language development), and it has been shown that children who sit at a meal for 20-30 minutes eat significantly more undesired fruits and vegetables than those seated for less time. Boredom helps with exploration!

Sometimes a new brand or new way of preparing a food that they currently won’t eat, or sprinkling a new food on a currently accepted food (eg, chocolate on a fruit) will encourage eating it. Adding a food similar to one they are already eating may help.

It is wise to avoid supplements, however. While nutritionally sound and supportive of growth, supplements are usually calorie dense, and they remove the drive to eat at meals, as well as not providing the variety of components needed to reduce selectivity.
 

Advice for Severe Cases

If picky eating is severe or growth is impaired, and the eating pattern does not respond to these adjustments and parent counseling, more may be needed. One of the main things known to increase the variety eaten is repeated tasting. Looks are not enough. A proven method includes giving praise and sticker rewards for eating a little piece of the same undesired vegetable/food presented to them each day for at least 14 days in a row. This method may expand the range of foods eaten as well as the range of those liked. Even a microscopic amount, the size of a grain of rice of an undesired food, if ingested regularly and repeatedly, will increase acceptance!

A feeding program for serious problems with food selectivity at Penn State has the child given A) a pea-sized amount of an undesired food and B) a bite-sized amount of an accepted food. The child is required to eat A in order to get B, plus a small drink. This is done repeatedly for about 10 minutes. If the child does not eat anything, they don’t get anything more until the next meal. An alternative to this is insisting on one bite per meal or one bite per day of an undesired food. One can also mix in, in increasing amounts, an undesired liquid into a desired liquid. While families travel far for this special program when selectivity is extreme, the “praise and sticker” method has been shown effective done at home.

In extreme cases of food selectivity or refusal, we need to consider medical problems as a potential cause, especially if choking, gagging, or vomiting occur or if there is poor weight gain or complications such as rash, abdominal pain, or diarrhea. An episode of food poisoning or an allergic reaction (anaphylaxis can present as diarrhea) can trigger onset of a lifelong aversion to that food. Omitting foods that have sickened a person is reasonable. Gastroesophageal reflux and eosinophilic esophagitis, oral-motor incoordination and choking, dental caries, tracheo-esophageal fistulas with aspiration, constipation, sensory issues, and sometimes lactose intolerance all may cause food refusal through the conditioned responses to the discomfort. Children with autism often have a combination of these factors producing severe food selectivity for which the above methods can be helpful.

Parents everywhere take feeding their children as one of their highest priorities. Along with empathy for their concern, understanding potential contributing factors and some practical prevention and intervention steps for picky eating can help you partner on what can be a long journey. On a positive note, you can reassure parents that studies also show that picky eaters are less likely to go on to be overweight!
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Is picky eating a problem? Well, yes and no. We have all had parents come to us with concerns about their child’s picky eating. At this point in history, we may feel grateful not to be facing another of the myriad of our child patients who are seriously overweight. So, should we just tell parents to not worry about it?

About 18% of young children are picky eaters; 7% of older children, even adolescents, are still picky eaters. The lack of variety eaten can limit growth and nutrition — in particular iron, and vitamins A and C — and limit them socially at older ages because people think they’re weird because they don’t eat typical foods. The crying, tantrums, gagging, even vomiting at the sight of certain foods that may be part of picky eating is hard on families and may make them all less welcome as guests/friends. We know that if eating issues are not addressed early, they tend to persist. For example, the fruit variety eaten is actually higher at 27 months than it is at 60 months without intervention. The fruit variety eaten at 2 years of age actually predicts what the child will eat when they’re 6-8 years old. About 40% of irregular eaters at age 5 are still irregular eaters at age 14.
 

Practical Advice for Dealing With Picky Eating

There are some things you may not know about this common condition that could change your approach. Infants in the first year of life will naturally turn away from the bottle or breast when sated. But babies need to learn to eat solids, and it is actually stressful. Pushing food out is their first response. If progressively more textured foods are not provided between 6 and 10 months of age, the baby may struggle with accepting solids subsequently. Babies around 8 months want to grab everything, including the spoon, and want to feed themselves. If parents push the spoon and thwart participation, refusal to be fed — the so-called Battle of the Spoon, the most common reason for stalled weight gain at this age — may ensue. Instead, caregivers need to give the baby his/her own spoon to hold, and allow finger feeding, no matter how messy! The parent’s job is to provide healthy food in reasonable amounts, and the child’s job is to eat what they want of it.

But, often suddenly, typically around 21 months, children may become picky. What happened? This is an age of perceiving differences and developing a strong sense of autonomy. Foods recently eaten without protest may now be dramatically rejected. Whole food categories or textures (think slimy) may be refused, especially vegetables and meat. Food cut in their preferred shape, their favorite brand, or delivered in the same cup may be demanded with alternatives refused. Foods that touch together on the plate or are covered with sauce may cause a tantrum. Some of this pickiness may reflect sensitive or intense temperament. Some food preferences are cultural (borscht?), or familial (no fruit), but others are nearly universal because of the heightened sensitivity of taste at this age (spinach, for example, as it contains oxalic acid).

Young children refusing foods can have their autonomy honored by providing only healthy foods on a low table to eat as they please without commentary, but continue seating them with family for meals, allowing exit (no return) from that meal if they choose. The desire to be social and removal of pressure results in eating regular meals within a week in most cases.

Any of these new reactions may persist for years. In most cases, picky eaters get adequate nutrition and grow fine without any intervention. Removing the power struggle or parental discord is generally more important than getting the child to accept a few more foods. Keep in mind that children may have picky eating because mealtime interactions are aversive or in order to get attention or a special menu — both reinforcers to avoid.

But there are some ways food selectivity can be reduced. Modeling eating a variety of foods can make a difference but is best done without comment (seen as pressure). Seeing heroes or peers eat the food that might otherwise be undesired by a picky eater (recall Popeye, who ate his spinach), is based on this. Having a peer come over who will eat that specific food (Mikey likes it!) can be very helpful.

There are other practices that can improve picky eating and are good general feeding advice. Maintaining three meals and three snacks, always at the table with adult company, can reduce grazing on perhaps tasty and filling foods or drinks (milk being the worst) that replace the drive for eating less desired foods once seated. Providing the child a multivitamin can help parents avoid showing panic or pressure when working to increase food variety. All the foods prepared for the family should be put on the plate to increase exposure, along with at least one item the child is known to eat. Family meals have many benefits (eg, language development), and it has been shown that children who sit at a meal for 20-30 minutes eat significantly more undesired fruits and vegetables than those seated for less time. Boredom helps with exploration!

Sometimes a new brand or new way of preparing a food that they currently won’t eat, or sprinkling a new food on a currently accepted food (eg, chocolate on a fruit) will encourage eating it. Adding a food similar to one they are already eating may help.

It is wise to avoid supplements, however. While nutritionally sound and supportive of growth, supplements are usually calorie dense, and they remove the drive to eat at meals, as well as not providing the variety of components needed to reduce selectivity.
 

Advice for Severe Cases

If picky eating is severe or growth is impaired, and the eating pattern does not respond to these adjustments and parent counseling, more may be needed. One of the main things known to increase the variety eaten is repeated tasting. Looks are not enough. A proven method includes giving praise and sticker rewards for eating a little piece of the same undesired vegetable/food presented to them each day for at least 14 days in a row. This method may expand the range of foods eaten as well as the range of those liked. Even a microscopic amount, the size of a grain of rice of an undesired food, if ingested regularly and repeatedly, will increase acceptance!

A feeding program for serious problems with food selectivity at Penn State has the child given A) a pea-sized amount of an undesired food and B) a bite-sized amount of an accepted food. The child is required to eat A in order to get B, plus a small drink. This is done repeatedly for about 10 minutes. If the child does not eat anything, they don’t get anything more until the next meal. An alternative to this is insisting on one bite per meal or one bite per day of an undesired food. One can also mix in, in increasing amounts, an undesired liquid into a desired liquid. While families travel far for this special program when selectivity is extreme, the “praise and sticker” method has been shown effective done at home.

In extreme cases of food selectivity or refusal, we need to consider medical problems as a potential cause, especially if choking, gagging, or vomiting occur or if there is poor weight gain or complications such as rash, abdominal pain, or diarrhea. An episode of food poisoning or an allergic reaction (anaphylaxis can present as diarrhea) can trigger onset of a lifelong aversion to that food. Omitting foods that have sickened a person is reasonable. Gastroesophageal reflux and eosinophilic esophagitis, oral-motor incoordination and choking, dental caries, tracheo-esophageal fistulas with aspiration, constipation, sensory issues, and sometimes lactose intolerance all may cause food refusal through the conditioned responses to the discomfort. Children with autism often have a combination of these factors producing severe food selectivity for which the above methods can be helpful.

Parents everywhere take feeding their children as one of their highest priorities. Along with empathy for their concern, understanding potential contributing factors and some practical prevention and intervention steps for picky eating can help you partner on what can be a long journey. On a positive note, you can reassure parents that studies also show that picky eaters are less likely to go on to be overweight!
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Is picky eating a problem? Well, yes and no. We have all had parents come to us with concerns about their child’s picky eating. At this point in history, we may feel grateful not to be facing another of the myriad of our child patients who are seriously overweight. So, should we just tell parents to not worry about it?

About 18% of young children are picky eaters; 7% of older children, even adolescents, are still picky eaters. The lack of variety eaten can limit growth and nutrition — in particular iron, and vitamins A and C — and limit them socially at older ages because people think they’re weird because they don’t eat typical foods. The crying, tantrums, gagging, even vomiting at the sight of certain foods that may be part of picky eating is hard on families and may make them all less welcome as guests/friends. We know that if eating issues are not addressed early, they tend to persist. For example, the fruit variety eaten is actually higher at 27 months than it is at 60 months without intervention. The fruit variety eaten at 2 years of age actually predicts what the child will eat when they’re 6-8 years old. About 40% of irregular eaters at age 5 are still irregular eaters at age 14.
 

Practical Advice for Dealing With Picky Eating

There are some things you may not know about this common condition that could change your approach. Infants in the first year of life will naturally turn away from the bottle or breast when sated. But babies need to learn to eat solids, and it is actually stressful. Pushing food out is their first response. If progressively more textured foods are not provided between 6 and 10 months of age, the baby may struggle with accepting solids subsequently. Babies around 8 months want to grab everything, including the spoon, and want to feed themselves. If parents push the spoon and thwart participation, refusal to be fed — the so-called Battle of the Spoon, the most common reason for stalled weight gain at this age — may ensue. Instead, caregivers need to give the baby his/her own spoon to hold, and allow finger feeding, no matter how messy! The parent’s job is to provide healthy food in reasonable amounts, and the child’s job is to eat what they want of it.

But, often suddenly, typically around 21 months, children may become picky. What happened? This is an age of perceiving differences and developing a strong sense of autonomy. Foods recently eaten without protest may now be dramatically rejected. Whole food categories or textures (think slimy) may be refused, especially vegetables and meat. Food cut in their preferred shape, their favorite brand, or delivered in the same cup may be demanded with alternatives refused. Foods that touch together on the plate or are covered with sauce may cause a tantrum. Some of this pickiness may reflect sensitive or intense temperament. Some food preferences are cultural (borscht?), or familial (no fruit), but others are nearly universal because of the heightened sensitivity of taste at this age (spinach, for example, as it contains oxalic acid).

Young children refusing foods can have their autonomy honored by providing only healthy foods on a low table to eat as they please without commentary, but continue seating them with family for meals, allowing exit (no return) from that meal if they choose. The desire to be social and removal of pressure results in eating regular meals within a week in most cases.

Any of these new reactions may persist for years. In most cases, picky eaters get adequate nutrition and grow fine without any intervention. Removing the power struggle or parental discord is generally more important than getting the child to accept a few more foods. Keep in mind that children may have picky eating because mealtime interactions are aversive or in order to get attention or a special menu — both reinforcers to avoid.

But there are some ways food selectivity can be reduced. Modeling eating a variety of foods can make a difference but is best done without comment (seen as pressure). Seeing heroes or peers eat the food that might otherwise be undesired by a picky eater (recall Popeye, who ate his spinach), is based on this. Having a peer come over who will eat that specific food (Mikey likes it!) can be very helpful.

There are other practices that can improve picky eating and are good general feeding advice. Maintaining three meals and three snacks, always at the table with adult company, can reduce grazing on perhaps tasty and filling foods or drinks (milk being the worst) that replace the drive for eating less desired foods once seated. Providing the child a multivitamin can help parents avoid showing panic or pressure when working to increase food variety. All the foods prepared for the family should be put on the plate to increase exposure, along with at least one item the child is known to eat. Family meals have many benefits (eg, language development), and it has been shown that children who sit at a meal for 20-30 minutes eat significantly more undesired fruits and vegetables than those seated for less time. Boredom helps with exploration!

Sometimes a new brand or new way of preparing a food that they currently won’t eat, or sprinkling a new food on a currently accepted food (eg, chocolate on a fruit) will encourage eating it. Adding a food similar to one they are already eating may help.

It is wise to avoid supplements, however. While nutritionally sound and supportive of growth, supplements are usually calorie dense, and they remove the drive to eat at meals, as well as not providing the variety of components needed to reduce selectivity.
 

Advice for Severe Cases

If picky eating is severe or growth is impaired, and the eating pattern does not respond to these adjustments and parent counseling, more may be needed. One of the main things known to increase the variety eaten is repeated tasting. Looks are not enough. A proven method includes giving praise and sticker rewards for eating a little piece of the same undesired vegetable/food presented to them each day for at least 14 days in a row. This method may expand the range of foods eaten as well as the range of those liked. Even a microscopic amount, the size of a grain of rice of an undesired food, if ingested regularly and repeatedly, will increase acceptance!

A feeding program for serious problems with food selectivity at Penn State has the child given A) a pea-sized amount of an undesired food and B) a bite-sized amount of an accepted food. The child is required to eat A in order to get B, plus a small drink. This is done repeatedly for about 10 minutes. If the child does not eat anything, they don’t get anything more until the next meal. An alternative to this is insisting on one bite per meal or one bite per day of an undesired food. One can also mix in, in increasing amounts, an undesired liquid into a desired liquid. While families travel far for this special program when selectivity is extreme, the “praise and sticker” method has been shown effective done at home.

In extreme cases of food selectivity or refusal, we need to consider medical problems as a potential cause, especially if choking, gagging, or vomiting occur or if there is poor weight gain or complications such as rash, abdominal pain, or diarrhea. An episode of food poisoning or an allergic reaction (anaphylaxis can present as diarrhea) can trigger onset of a lifelong aversion to that food. Omitting foods that have sickened a person is reasonable. Gastroesophageal reflux and eosinophilic esophagitis, oral-motor incoordination and choking, dental caries, tracheo-esophageal fistulas with aspiration, constipation, sensory issues, and sometimes lactose intolerance all may cause food refusal through the conditioned responses to the discomfort. Children with autism often have a combination of these factors producing severe food selectivity for which the above methods can be helpful.

Parents everywhere take feeding their children as one of their highest priorities. Along with empathy for their concern, understanding potential contributing factors and some practical prevention and intervention steps for picky eating can help you partner on what can be a long journey. On a positive note, you can reassure parents that studies also show that picky eaters are less likely to go on to be overweight!
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On May 5, 2023, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rochelle Walensky, in announcing her resignation after more than 2 years of dedicated service, wrote that she “took on this role … with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving the CDC — and public health — forward into a much better and more trusted place.”

Three times in the past 3 years I have written a Beyond the White Coat column emphasizing the importance of trust. Trust in the expertise of scientists. Trust in the integrity of medical research and public health institutions. Trust in the commitment of providers — doctors, nurses, therapists, and first responders — to shepherd us through the pandemic and other medical crises in our lives. This column is take four.

All human institutions have human imperfections. However, imperfect humans working together in community are more productive and more reliable than nihilism and political polarization. Underlying all of healthcare are compassion and honesty. Honesty means the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Honesty is such a simple concept in the moral formation of children, but the concept has evolved aberrantly in the world of woke adults. There appear to be irresistible temptations to shade that truth for political gain. The dominant current mutation is the half-truth. One tells the part of the truth that appears to advance one’s own political aspirations and at the same time one omits or censors other viewpoints.

On April 17, 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote an open letter to Congressional leaders advocating for transgender female students’ participation in girl’s and women’s sports. The letter was written “On behalf of the more than 165,000” members of those organizations, though public opinion polls show a majority of those members likely oppose the opinion expressed. The letter goes on to extol the benefits that sports might bring to transgender students, but it contains not one word acknowledging the negative impact that participation has on others. That is a half-truth.

The same half-truth methodology distorts dialogue about various therapies for gender dysphoria in children and young adults.

In April 2022, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine in an NPR interview declared that, “There is no argument about the value and importance of gender-affirming care.” That might be a half-truth, since I could not locate U.S. specialists who dare to go on record questioning the party line of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. However, Dr. Levine’s dismissal of any dissent is bizarre since in the prior 2 years multiple countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom had all issued reports questioning and even rescinding the practices that evolved since the 2012 WPATH guidance. Their main concerns included 1) the marked increase in incidence of gender dysphoria first manifesting in tween and early teenage girls, 2) the inadequate access to mental health screening before considering transitioning, 3) the long-term risks of puberty blockers particularly to bone density, and 4) the low quality of evidence supporting a measurable reduction in suicide rates. There may be reasonable counterarguments to each of those concerns, but a high ranking U.S. government official labeling all those international reports as “no argument” does not produce high quality decision making and does not foster the public’s trust.

Indeed, the public in many cases has decided its elected legislators are more trustworthy on these topics than the medical organizations. As I wrote the first draft of this column, the Missouri state legislators had passed a bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors. They also passed a bill preventing participation of transgender females in women’s sports. Per reckoning by CBS News in the summer of 2023, 16 states had recently enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care and 22 states had restricted transgender participation in sports.

In 2022, I wrote a column claiming that suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships. I believe the current legislative carnage is just such an explosion. It harms children.

The AAP has experts in advocacy. I am no expert in political advocacy. Perhaps politics has to be played by different rules where half-truths are normalized. Criminal law and advertising use those rules. But this explosion of vitriol and legislative intrusion into medicine should prompt everyone to reassess the use of one-sided advocacy in public and professional circles in healthcare. I want to be associated with a profession that uses evidence-based medicine that is not corrupted with political agendas. I want to be associated with a profession known for telling the whole truth.

In a society that is increasingly polarized, I want to embrace the advice of John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher best known for utilitarianism, which is often expressed as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Mr. Mill also wrote on social theory, liberty, and even some early feminist theory. His 1859 work, On Liberty, chapter II, asserts: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

Mr. Mill did not like half-truths.
 

It’s About Trust

My column is not the instrument to debate the use of hormones as puberty blockers or the fairness of transgender women participating in women’s sports. Those judgments will be rendered by others. I may report on those deliberations, but my column’s emphasis is on how professionals, and their organizations, go about making those determinations

For instance, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom spent 2 years reassessing transgender care for children and in October 2022 released a draft proposal to reduce and limit the aggressive therapies. On June 9, 2023, the NHS fully enacted those changes. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria would be used only in experimental trials. In April 2024 the NHS began implementing those changes, joining other European countries that have imposed similar restrictions.

Similarly, the debate about transgender participation in women’s sports has continued to rage for years. On April 8, 2024, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics passed a resolution that bans almost all transgender participation in NAIA-regulated intercollegiate women’s sports. Dance and cheerleading are exceptions. Participation is still permissible at the intramural level. The NCAA has different rules.

Go to those sources to learn more substance for those debates. This column is about trust.

A major problem currently facing medicine is the public’s trust in expertise. That trust had been seriously weakened before the pandemic and was repeatedly wounded during the pandemic with arguments over masks, vaccines, and shutdowns. It needs repair.

A parent bringing a baby to a pediatrician’s office needs to trust that physician for the relationship to work. This is especially true for pediatric hospitalists that do not have the opportunity that office-based pediatricians have to build rapport with a family over years. At a recent university conference on diversity, equity, and inclusivity, one female rabbi stated, “I cannot be rabbi to everybody.” I agreed, but as a medical professional, sometimes I must be.

Telling half-truths harms the public’s trust in their personal physicians and in the medical establishment. Once people suspect an organization is making decisions based on ideology rather than science, credibility is lost and difficult to recover.

Let us stop telling half-truths. Let us stop suppressing dialogue. Truth can never be completely captured by humans, but if one side of an issue is suppressed by cancel culture, censorship, accusations of homophobia, or threat of cultural war, the search for truth is severely impaired.

Let us, as medical professionals, adopt Stephen Covey’s habit number 5, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Empower voices. Listen to all stakeholders. And when we finally do speak, remember John Stuart Mill and tell the whole truth.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On May 5, 2023, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rochelle Walensky, in announcing her resignation after more than 2 years of dedicated service, wrote that she “took on this role … with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving the CDC — and public health — forward into a much better and more trusted place.”

Three times in the past 3 years I have written a Beyond the White Coat column emphasizing the importance of trust. Trust in the expertise of scientists. Trust in the integrity of medical research and public health institutions. Trust in the commitment of providers — doctors, nurses, therapists, and first responders — to shepherd us through the pandemic and other medical crises in our lives. This column is take four.

All human institutions have human imperfections. However, imperfect humans working together in community are more productive and more reliable than nihilism and political polarization. Underlying all of healthcare are compassion and honesty. Honesty means the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Honesty is such a simple concept in the moral formation of children, but the concept has evolved aberrantly in the world of woke adults. There appear to be irresistible temptations to shade that truth for political gain. The dominant current mutation is the half-truth. One tells the part of the truth that appears to advance one’s own political aspirations and at the same time one omits or censors other viewpoints.

On April 17, 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote an open letter to Congressional leaders advocating for transgender female students’ participation in girl’s and women’s sports. The letter was written “On behalf of the more than 165,000” members of those organizations, though public opinion polls show a majority of those members likely oppose the opinion expressed. The letter goes on to extol the benefits that sports might bring to transgender students, but it contains not one word acknowledging the negative impact that participation has on others. That is a half-truth.

The same half-truth methodology distorts dialogue about various therapies for gender dysphoria in children and young adults.

In April 2022, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine in an NPR interview declared that, “There is no argument about the value and importance of gender-affirming care.” That might be a half-truth, since I could not locate U.S. specialists who dare to go on record questioning the party line of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. However, Dr. Levine’s dismissal of any dissent is bizarre since in the prior 2 years multiple countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom had all issued reports questioning and even rescinding the practices that evolved since the 2012 WPATH guidance. Their main concerns included 1) the marked increase in incidence of gender dysphoria first manifesting in tween and early teenage girls, 2) the inadequate access to mental health screening before considering transitioning, 3) the long-term risks of puberty blockers particularly to bone density, and 4) the low quality of evidence supporting a measurable reduction in suicide rates. There may be reasonable counterarguments to each of those concerns, but a high ranking U.S. government official labeling all those international reports as “no argument” does not produce high quality decision making and does not foster the public’s trust.

Indeed, the public in many cases has decided its elected legislators are more trustworthy on these topics than the medical organizations. As I wrote the first draft of this column, the Missouri state legislators had passed a bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors. They also passed a bill preventing participation of transgender females in women’s sports. Per reckoning by CBS News in the summer of 2023, 16 states had recently enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care and 22 states had restricted transgender participation in sports.

In 2022, I wrote a column claiming that suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships. I believe the current legislative carnage is just such an explosion. It harms children.

The AAP has experts in advocacy. I am no expert in political advocacy. Perhaps politics has to be played by different rules where half-truths are normalized. Criminal law and advertising use those rules. But this explosion of vitriol and legislative intrusion into medicine should prompt everyone to reassess the use of one-sided advocacy in public and professional circles in healthcare. I want to be associated with a profession that uses evidence-based medicine that is not corrupted with political agendas. I want to be associated with a profession known for telling the whole truth.

In a society that is increasingly polarized, I want to embrace the advice of John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher best known for utilitarianism, which is often expressed as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Mr. Mill also wrote on social theory, liberty, and even some early feminist theory. His 1859 work, On Liberty, chapter II, asserts: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

Mr. Mill did not like half-truths.
 

It’s About Trust

My column is not the instrument to debate the use of hormones as puberty blockers or the fairness of transgender women participating in women’s sports. Those judgments will be rendered by others. I may report on those deliberations, but my column’s emphasis is on how professionals, and their organizations, go about making those determinations

For instance, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom spent 2 years reassessing transgender care for children and in October 2022 released a draft proposal to reduce and limit the aggressive therapies. On June 9, 2023, the NHS fully enacted those changes. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria would be used only in experimental trials. In April 2024 the NHS began implementing those changes, joining other European countries that have imposed similar restrictions.

Similarly, the debate about transgender participation in women’s sports has continued to rage for years. On April 8, 2024, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics passed a resolution that bans almost all transgender participation in NAIA-regulated intercollegiate women’s sports. Dance and cheerleading are exceptions. Participation is still permissible at the intramural level. The NCAA has different rules.

Go to those sources to learn more substance for those debates. This column is about trust.

A major problem currently facing medicine is the public’s trust in expertise. That trust had been seriously weakened before the pandemic and was repeatedly wounded during the pandemic with arguments over masks, vaccines, and shutdowns. It needs repair.

A parent bringing a baby to a pediatrician’s office needs to trust that physician for the relationship to work. This is especially true for pediatric hospitalists that do not have the opportunity that office-based pediatricians have to build rapport with a family over years. At a recent university conference on diversity, equity, and inclusivity, one female rabbi stated, “I cannot be rabbi to everybody.” I agreed, but as a medical professional, sometimes I must be.

Telling half-truths harms the public’s trust in their personal physicians and in the medical establishment. Once people suspect an organization is making decisions based on ideology rather than science, credibility is lost and difficult to recover.

Let us stop telling half-truths. Let us stop suppressing dialogue. Truth can never be completely captured by humans, but if one side of an issue is suppressed by cancel culture, censorship, accusations of homophobia, or threat of cultural war, the search for truth is severely impaired.

Let us, as medical professionals, adopt Stephen Covey’s habit number 5, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Empower voices. Listen to all stakeholders. And when we finally do speak, remember John Stuart Mill and tell the whole truth.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On May 5, 2023, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rochelle Walensky, in announcing her resignation after more than 2 years of dedicated service, wrote that she “took on this role … with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving the CDC — and public health — forward into a much better and more trusted place.”

Three times in the past 3 years I have written a Beyond the White Coat column emphasizing the importance of trust. Trust in the expertise of scientists. Trust in the integrity of medical research and public health institutions. Trust in the commitment of providers — doctors, nurses, therapists, and first responders — to shepherd us through the pandemic and other medical crises in our lives. This column is take four.

All human institutions have human imperfections. However, imperfect humans working together in community are more productive and more reliable than nihilism and political polarization. Underlying all of healthcare are compassion and honesty. Honesty means the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Honesty is such a simple concept in the moral formation of children, but the concept has evolved aberrantly in the world of woke adults. There appear to be irresistible temptations to shade that truth for political gain. The dominant current mutation is the half-truth. One tells the part of the truth that appears to advance one’s own political aspirations and at the same time one omits or censors other viewpoints.

On April 17, 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote an open letter to Congressional leaders advocating for transgender female students’ participation in girl’s and women’s sports. The letter was written “On behalf of the more than 165,000” members of those organizations, though public opinion polls show a majority of those members likely oppose the opinion expressed. The letter goes on to extol the benefits that sports might bring to transgender students, but it contains not one word acknowledging the negative impact that participation has on others. That is a half-truth.

The same half-truth methodology distorts dialogue about various therapies for gender dysphoria in children and young adults.

In April 2022, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine in an NPR interview declared that, “There is no argument about the value and importance of gender-affirming care.” That might be a half-truth, since I could not locate U.S. specialists who dare to go on record questioning the party line of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. However, Dr. Levine’s dismissal of any dissent is bizarre since in the prior 2 years multiple countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom had all issued reports questioning and even rescinding the practices that evolved since the 2012 WPATH guidance. Their main concerns included 1) the marked increase in incidence of gender dysphoria first manifesting in tween and early teenage girls, 2) the inadequate access to mental health screening before considering transitioning, 3) the long-term risks of puberty blockers particularly to bone density, and 4) the low quality of evidence supporting a measurable reduction in suicide rates. There may be reasonable counterarguments to each of those concerns, but a high ranking U.S. government official labeling all those international reports as “no argument” does not produce high quality decision making and does not foster the public’s trust.

Indeed, the public in many cases has decided its elected legislators are more trustworthy on these topics than the medical organizations. As I wrote the first draft of this column, the Missouri state legislators had passed a bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors. They also passed a bill preventing participation of transgender females in women’s sports. Per reckoning by CBS News in the summer of 2023, 16 states had recently enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care and 22 states had restricted transgender participation in sports.

In 2022, I wrote a column claiming that suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships. I believe the current legislative carnage is just such an explosion. It harms children.

The AAP has experts in advocacy. I am no expert in political advocacy. Perhaps politics has to be played by different rules where half-truths are normalized. Criminal law and advertising use those rules. But this explosion of vitriol and legislative intrusion into medicine should prompt everyone to reassess the use of one-sided advocacy in public and professional circles in healthcare. I want to be associated with a profession that uses evidence-based medicine that is not corrupted with political agendas. I want to be associated with a profession known for telling the whole truth.

In a society that is increasingly polarized, I want to embrace the advice of John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher best known for utilitarianism, which is often expressed as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Mr. Mill also wrote on social theory, liberty, and even some early feminist theory. His 1859 work, On Liberty, chapter II, asserts: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

Mr. Mill did not like half-truths.
 

It’s About Trust

My column is not the instrument to debate the use of hormones as puberty blockers or the fairness of transgender women participating in women’s sports. Those judgments will be rendered by others. I may report on those deliberations, but my column’s emphasis is on how professionals, and their organizations, go about making those determinations

For instance, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom spent 2 years reassessing transgender care for children and in October 2022 released a draft proposal to reduce and limit the aggressive therapies. On June 9, 2023, the NHS fully enacted those changes. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria would be used only in experimental trials. In April 2024 the NHS began implementing those changes, joining other European countries that have imposed similar restrictions.

Similarly, the debate about transgender participation in women’s sports has continued to rage for years. On April 8, 2024, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics passed a resolution that bans almost all transgender participation in NAIA-regulated intercollegiate women’s sports. Dance and cheerleading are exceptions. Participation is still permissible at the intramural level. The NCAA has different rules.

Go to those sources to learn more substance for those debates. This column is about trust.

A major problem currently facing medicine is the public’s trust in expertise. That trust had been seriously weakened before the pandemic and was repeatedly wounded during the pandemic with arguments over masks, vaccines, and shutdowns. It needs repair.

A parent bringing a baby to a pediatrician’s office needs to trust that physician for the relationship to work. This is especially true for pediatric hospitalists that do not have the opportunity that office-based pediatricians have to build rapport with a family over years. At a recent university conference on diversity, equity, and inclusivity, one female rabbi stated, “I cannot be rabbi to everybody.” I agreed, but as a medical professional, sometimes I must be.

Telling half-truths harms the public’s trust in their personal physicians and in the medical establishment. Once people suspect an organization is making decisions based on ideology rather than science, credibility is lost and difficult to recover.

Let us stop telling half-truths. Let us stop suppressing dialogue. Truth can never be completely captured by humans, but if one side of an issue is suppressed by cancel culture, censorship, accusations of homophobia, or threat of cultural war, the search for truth is severely impaired.

Let us, as medical professionals, adopt Stephen Covey’s habit number 5, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Empower voices. Listen to all stakeholders. And when we finally do speak, remember John Stuart Mill and tell the whole truth.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Imagine going to see your physician and being mistreated for who you are. For LGBTQ patients, this is an everyday reality. According to a new Kaiser Family Foundation report, 33% of LGBT adults experienced unfair or disrespectful treatment from their physician or other healthcare provider compared with only 15% of their non-LGBT counterparts.¹LGBTQ children and adolescents are also more likely to experience discrimination from their physicians or other healthcare providers compared with their non-LGBTQ counterparts.

Statistics such as this underscore the importance of ensuring our offices and staff are as welcoming as possible to our LGBTQ patients. When patients feel unwelcome, it can have serious consequences for their health. In a 2022 report, the Center for American Progress found that 23% of LGBTQ patients, and 37% of transgender patients, postponed medically necessary care out of fear that they would experience discrimination in the healthcare setting.² This compares with 7% of their non-LGBTQ counterparts. In addition, 7% of LGBTQ patients said that their provider refused to see them due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation. While this may not be a problem in major urban areas where there are many physicians or other healthcare providers to see, in rural areas this could lead to loss of access to medically necessary care or require long travel times.

UT Southwestern Medical Center

This is not just an adult care problem. In their 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report, the Human Rights Campaign found that only 35.9% of LGBTQ+ youth were out to some or all of their doctors and 35.8% of transgender youth were out to some or all of their doctors.³ This could be due to fear of discrimination from their physician, in addition to possible concerns about loss of confidentiality if the physician were to tell their parent about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As of the time of the writing of this article, no state requires a physician to “out” their minor patients to their parent(s) or guardian(s). Therefore, it is important to respect the trust that your patient places in your confidentiality. As their physician, you may be the only adult to know about a patient’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Research shows that acceptance of one’s gender identity by at least one healthcare professional reduces the odds of a past-year suicide attempt by 32%.⁴

As of the time of the writing of this article, 10 states have laws that allow medical professionals to decline services to patients who are, or are perceived to be, LGBTQ based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. These laws directly conflict with our ethical obligations as physicians to care for all patients, regardless of their race, gender, culture, sexuality, gender identity, or religion. In fact, the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics states that physicians must “respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against individuals in deciding whether to enter into a professional relationship with a new patient” and “take care that their actions do not discriminate against or unduly burden individual patients or populations of patients and do not adversely affect patient or public trust.” This requires all of us to examine our implicit biases and treat all patients with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Montero A et al. LGBT Adults’ Experiences With Discrimination and Health Care Disparities: Findings From the KFF Survey of Racism, Discrimination, and Health. KFF 2024 Apr 2.

2. Medina C and Mahowald L. Discrimination and Barriers to Well-Being: The State of the LGBTQI+ Community in 2022. Center for American Progress. 2023, Jan 12.

3. Goldberg SK et al. 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report. Human Rights Campaign Foundation. 2023 Aug.

4. Price MN and Green AE. Association of Gender Identity Acceptance With Fewer Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth. Transgend Health. 2023 Feb 8;8(1):56-63. doi: 10.1089/trgh.2021.0079.

Imagine going to see your physician and being mistreated for who you are. For LGBTQ patients, this is an everyday reality. According to a new Kaiser Family Foundation report, 33% of LGBT adults experienced unfair or disrespectful treatment from their physician or other healthcare provider compared with only 15% of their non-LGBT counterparts.¹LGBTQ children and adolescents are also more likely to experience discrimination from their physicians or other healthcare providers compared with their non-LGBTQ counterparts.

Statistics such as this underscore the importance of ensuring our offices and staff are as welcoming as possible to our LGBTQ patients. When patients feel unwelcome, it can have serious consequences for their health. In a 2022 report, the Center for American Progress found that 23% of LGBTQ patients, and 37% of transgender patients, postponed medically necessary care out of fear that they would experience discrimination in the healthcare setting.² This compares with 7% of their non-LGBTQ counterparts. In addition, 7% of LGBTQ patients said that their provider refused to see them due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation. While this may not be a problem in major urban areas where there are many physicians or other healthcare providers to see, in rural areas this could lead to loss of access to medically necessary care or require long travel times.

UT Southwestern Medical Center

This is not just an adult care problem. In their 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report, the Human Rights Campaign found that only 35.9% of LGBTQ+ youth were out to some or all of their doctors and 35.8% of transgender youth were out to some or all of their doctors.³ This could be due to fear of discrimination from their physician, in addition to possible concerns about loss of confidentiality if the physician were to tell their parent about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As of the time of the writing of this article, no state requires a physician to “out” their minor patients to their parent(s) or guardian(s). Therefore, it is important to respect the trust that your patient places in your confidentiality. As their physician, you may be the only adult to know about a patient’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Research shows that acceptance of one’s gender identity by at least one healthcare professional reduces the odds of a past-year suicide attempt by 32%.⁴

As of the time of the writing of this article, 10 states have laws that allow medical professionals to decline services to patients who are, or are perceived to be, LGBTQ based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. These laws directly conflict with our ethical obligations as physicians to care for all patients, regardless of their race, gender, culture, sexuality, gender identity, or religion. In fact, the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics states that physicians must “respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against individuals in deciding whether to enter into a professional relationship with a new patient” and “take care that their actions do not discriminate against or unduly burden individual patients or populations of patients and do not adversely affect patient or public trust.” This requires all of us to examine our implicit biases and treat all patients with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Montero A et al. LGBT Adults’ Experiences With Discrimination and Health Care Disparities: Findings From the KFF Survey of Racism, Discrimination, and Health. KFF 2024 Apr 2.

2. Medina C and Mahowald L. Discrimination and Barriers to Well-Being: The State of the LGBTQI+ Community in 2022. Center for American Progress. 2023, Jan 12.

3. Goldberg SK et al. 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report. Human Rights Campaign Foundation. 2023 Aug.

4. Price MN and Green AE. Association of Gender Identity Acceptance With Fewer Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth. Transgend Health. 2023 Feb 8;8(1):56-63. doi: 10.1089/trgh.2021.0079.

Imagine going to see your physician and being mistreated for who you are. For LGBTQ patients, this is an everyday reality. According to a new Kaiser Family Foundation report, 33% of LGBT adults experienced unfair or disrespectful treatment from their physician or other healthcare provider compared with only 15% of their non-LGBT counterparts.¹LGBTQ children and adolescents are also more likely to experience discrimination from their physicians or other healthcare providers compared with their non-LGBTQ counterparts.

Statistics such as this underscore the importance of ensuring our offices and staff are as welcoming as possible to our LGBTQ patients. When patients feel unwelcome, it can have serious consequences for their health. In a 2022 report, the Center for American Progress found that 23% of LGBTQ patients, and 37% of transgender patients, postponed medically necessary care out of fear that they would experience discrimination in the healthcare setting.² This compares with 7% of their non-LGBTQ counterparts. In addition, 7% of LGBTQ patients said that their provider refused to see them due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation. While this may not be a problem in major urban areas where there are many physicians or other healthcare providers to see, in rural areas this could lead to loss of access to medically necessary care or require long travel times.

UT Southwestern Medical Center

This is not just an adult care problem. In their 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report, the Human Rights Campaign found that only 35.9% of LGBTQ+ youth were out to some or all of their doctors and 35.8% of transgender youth were out to some or all of their doctors.³ This could be due to fear of discrimination from their physician, in addition to possible concerns about loss of confidentiality if the physician were to tell their parent about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As of the time of the writing of this article, no state requires a physician to “out” their minor patients to their parent(s) or guardian(s). Therefore, it is important to respect the trust that your patient places in your confidentiality. As their physician, you may be the only adult to know about a patient’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Research shows that acceptance of one’s gender identity by at least one healthcare professional reduces the odds of a past-year suicide attempt by 32%.⁴

As of the time of the writing of this article, 10 states have laws that allow medical professionals to decline services to patients who are, or are perceived to be, LGBTQ based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. These laws directly conflict with our ethical obligations as physicians to care for all patients, regardless of their race, gender, culture, sexuality, gender identity, or religion. In fact, the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics states that physicians must “respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against individuals in deciding whether to enter into a professional relationship with a new patient” and “take care that their actions do not discriminate against or unduly burden individual patients or populations of patients and do not adversely affect patient or public trust.” This requires all of us to examine our implicit biases and treat all patients with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Montero A et al. LGBT Adults’ Experiences With Discrimination and Health Care Disparities: Findings From the KFF Survey of Racism, Discrimination, and Health. KFF 2024 Apr 2.

2. Medina C and Mahowald L. Discrimination and Barriers to Well-Being: The State of the LGBTQI+ Community in 2022. Center for American Progress. 2023, Jan 12.

3. Goldberg SK et al. 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report. Human Rights Campaign Foundation. 2023 Aug.

4. Price MN and Green AE. Association of Gender Identity Acceptance With Fewer Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth. Transgend Health. 2023 Feb 8;8(1):56-63. doi: 10.1089/trgh.2021.0079.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had severe vs non-severe disease according to the modified Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (mCPDAI) showed higher disease activity, experienced more pain, and had higher disease impact both at baseline and during follow-up.

Major finding: At baseline, 36.1% of patients had severe PsA as assessed by mCPDAI. A significantly higher disease activity, disease impact, number of tender or swollen joints, and pain and reduced function were observed in patients with severe vs non-severe disease at baseline and follow-up (all P < .01). Male sex and severity of skin involvement at baseline were the factors associated with the severe PsA at last follow-up (both P ≤ .01).

Study details: This retrospective analysis of a longitudinal study included 177 patients with peripheral PsA who were followed for at least 1 year.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding or sponsorship. Ennio Lubrano and Fabio Perrotta declared being members of the editorial board of Rheumatology and Therapy. Silvia Scriffignano declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lubrano E, Scriffignano S, Perrotta FM. Clinical characteristics of "severe" peripheral psoriatic arthritis: A retrospective analysis of a longitudinal cohort. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Apr 9). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00667-0  Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had severe vs non-severe disease according to the modified Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (mCPDAI) showed higher disease activity, experienced more pain, and had higher disease impact both at baseline and during follow-up.

Major finding: At baseline, 36.1% of patients had severe PsA as assessed by mCPDAI. A significantly higher disease activity, disease impact, number of tender or swollen joints, and pain and reduced function were observed in patients with severe vs non-severe disease at baseline and follow-up (all P < .01). Male sex and severity of skin involvement at baseline were the factors associated with the severe PsA at last follow-up (both P ≤ .01).

Study details: This retrospective analysis of a longitudinal study included 177 patients with peripheral PsA who were followed for at least 1 year.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding or sponsorship. Ennio Lubrano and Fabio Perrotta declared being members of the editorial board of Rheumatology and Therapy. Silvia Scriffignano declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lubrano E, Scriffignano S, Perrotta FM. Clinical characteristics of "severe" peripheral psoriatic arthritis: A retrospective analysis of a longitudinal cohort. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Apr 9). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00667-0  Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had severe vs non-severe disease according to the modified Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (mCPDAI) showed higher disease activity, experienced more pain, and had higher disease impact both at baseline and during follow-up.

Major finding: At baseline, 36.1% of patients had severe PsA as assessed by mCPDAI. A significantly higher disease activity, disease impact, number of tender or swollen joints, and pain and reduced function were observed in patients with severe vs non-severe disease at baseline and follow-up (all P < .01). Male sex and severity of skin involvement at baseline were the factors associated with the severe PsA at last follow-up (both P ≤ .01).

Study details: This retrospective analysis of a longitudinal study included 177 patients with peripheral PsA who were followed for at least 1 year.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding or sponsorship. Ennio Lubrano and Fabio Perrotta declared being members of the editorial board of Rheumatology and Therapy. Silvia Scriffignano declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lubrano E, Scriffignano S, Perrotta FM. Clinical characteristics of "severe" peripheral psoriatic arthritis: A retrospective analysis of a longitudinal cohort. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Apr 9). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00667-0  Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with an interleukin-17A inhibitor (IL-17Ai) may be desirable in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as it proved to be more effective and safer compared with other biologics.

Major finding: A higher number of patients achieved the composite endpoint of ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.56; 95% CI 1.29-1.88; P < .001) and enthesitis resolution (pooled RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.02-1.47) with IL17Ai vs TNFi. The probability of adverse events was the lowest with phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (PDE4i) followed by IL-17Ai.

Study details: Findings are from a network meta-analysis of 17 studies including biologic-naive patients with PsA treated with IL inhibitor, TNFi, PDE4i, and Janus kinase inhibitors.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lin J, Ren Y. Different biologics for biological-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1279525 (Mar 12). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1279525  Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with an interleukin-17A inhibitor (IL-17Ai) may be desirable in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as it proved to be more effective and safer compared with other biologics.

Major finding: A higher number of patients achieved the composite endpoint of ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.56; 95% CI 1.29-1.88; P < .001) and enthesitis resolution (pooled RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.02-1.47) with IL17Ai vs TNFi. The probability of adverse events was the lowest with phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (PDE4i) followed by IL-17Ai.

Study details: Findings are from a network meta-analysis of 17 studies including biologic-naive patients with PsA treated with IL inhibitor, TNFi, PDE4i, and Janus kinase inhibitors.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lin J, Ren Y. Different biologics for biological-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1279525 (Mar 12). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1279525  Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with an interleukin-17A inhibitor (IL-17Ai) may be desirable in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as it proved to be more effective and safer compared with other biologics.

Major finding: A higher number of patients achieved the composite endpoint of ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.56; 95% CI 1.29-1.88; P < .001) and enthesitis resolution (pooled RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.02-1.47) with IL17Ai vs TNFi. The probability of adverse events was the lowest with phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (PDE4i) followed by IL-17Ai.

Study details: Findings are from a network meta-analysis of 17 studies including biologic-naive patients with PsA treated with IL inhibitor, TNFi, PDE4i, and Janus kinase inhibitors.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lin J, Ren Y. Different biologics for biological-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1279525 (Mar 12). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1279525  Source

Key clinical point: Risankizumab led to considerable improvements in skin- and joint-associated clinical outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were followed-up for >28 weeks.

Major finding: Of the 31 patients with clinical disease activity index for PsA > 4 at baseline, 11 patients achieved remission at a follow-up visit between 28 and 40 weeks (P < .004). Risankizumab also led to a significant reduction in the mean psoriasis area severity index score between weeks 28 and 40 vs baseline (0.3 vs 8.4; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, multicenter real-world study including 40 patients with PsA who were treated with 150 mg risankizumab at week 0 and week 4 and every 12 weeks subsequently.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Five authors declared receiving consulting fees or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Graceffa D, Zangrilli A, Caldarola G, et al. Effectiveness of risankizumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: A multicenter, real-world study. Int J Dermatol. 2024 (Apr 7). doi: 10.1111/ijd.17156 Source

Key clinical point: Risankizumab led to considerable improvements in skin- and joint-associated clinical outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were followed-up for >28 weeks.

Major finding: Of the 31 patients with clinical disease activity index for PsA > 4 at baseline, 11 patients achieved remission at a follow-up visit between 28 and 40 weeks (P < .004). Risankizumab also led to a significant reduction in the mean psoriasis area severity index score between weeks 28 and 40 vs baseline (0.3 vs 8.4; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, multicenter real-world study including 40 patients with PsA who were treated with 150 mg risankizumab at week 0 and week 4 and every 12 weeks subsequently.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Five authors declared receiving consulting fees or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Graceffa D, Zangrilli A, Caldarola G, et al. Effectiveness of risankizumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: A multicenter, real-world study. Int J Dermatol. 2024 (Apr 7). doi: 10.1111/ijd.17156 Source

Key clinical point: Risankizumab led to considerable improvements in skin- and joint-associated clinical outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were followed-up for >28 weeks.

Major finding: Of the 31 patients with clinical disease activity index for PsA > 4 at baseline, 11 patients achieved remission at a follow-up visit between 28 and 40 weeks (P < .004). Risankizumab also led to a significant reduction in the mean psoriasis area severity index score between weeks 28 and 40 vs baseline (0.3 vs 8.4; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, multicenter real-world study including 40 patients with PsA who were treated with 150 mg risankizumab at week 0 and week 4 and every 12 weeks subsequently.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Five authors declared receiving consulting fees or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Graceffa D, Zangrilli A, Caldarola G, et al. Effectiveness of risankizumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: A multicenter, real-world study. Int J Dermatol. 2024 (Apr 7). doi: 10.1111/ijd.17156 Source

Key clinical point: A quarter of patients with early psoriatic arthritis who were naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) reported bone erosions, with a decreased prevalence being observed in patients with shorter duration of PsA symptoms (<8 months).

Major finding: Overall, 4655 hand and feet joints were assessed in 122 patients, of whom 24.6% patients had bone erosions at baseline, with higher Disease Activity features observed in patients who did vs did not have bone erosions (P < .05). Prevalence of erosion was less in patients who had a <8 months vs >24 months of PsA symptoms (17.5% vs 24.3%).

Study details: This study included 122 newly diagnosed, DMARD-naive patients with early PsA from the Leeds Spondyloarthropathy Register for Research and Observation cohort who were assessed for bone erosions using conventional radiography or ultrasound.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. Sayam R. Dubash received support from Leeds Cares charity. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hen O, Di Matteo A, Dubash SR, et al. High prevalence of radiographic erosions in early, untreated PsA: Results from the SpARRO cohort. RMD Open. 2024;10:e003841 (Apr 5). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003841 Source

Key clinical point: A quarter of patients with early psoriatic arthritis who were naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) reported bone erosions, with a decreased prevalence being observed in patients with shorter duration of PsA symptoms (<8 months).

Major finding: Overall, 4655 hand and feet joints were assessed in 122 patients, of whom 24.6% patients had bone erosions at baseline, with higher Disease Activity features observed in patients who did vs did not have bone erosions (P < .05). Prevalence of erosion was less in patients who had a <8 months vs >24 months of PsA symptoms (17.5% vs 24.3%).

Study details: This study included 122 newly diagnosed, DMARD-naive patients with early PsA from the Leeds Spondyloarthropathy Register for Research and Observation cohort who were assessed for bone erosions using conventional radiography or ultrasound.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. Sayam R. Dubash received support from Leeds Cares charity. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hen O, Di Matteo A, Dubash SR, et al. High prevalence of radiographic erosions in early, untreated PsA: Results from the SpARRO cohort. RMD Open. 2024;10:e003841 (Apr 5). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003841 Source

Key clinical point: A quarter of patients with early psoriatic arthritis who were naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) reported bone erosions, with a decreased prevalence being observed in patients with shorter duration of PsA symptoms (<8 months).

Major finding: Overall, 4655 hand and feet joints were assessed in 122 patients, of whom 24.6% patients had bone erosions at baseline, with higher Disease Activity features observed in patients who did vs did not have bone erosions (P < .05). Prevalence of erosion was less in patients who had a <8 months vs >24 months of PsA symptoms (17.5% vs 24.3%).

Study details: This study included 122 newly diagnosed, DMARD-naive patients with early PsA from the Leeds Spondyloarthropathy Register for Research and Observation cohort who were assessed for bone erosions using conventional radiography or ultrasound.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. Sayam R. Dubash received support from Leeds Cares charity. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hen O, Di Matteo A, Dubash SR, et al. High prevalence of radiographic erosions in early, untreated PsA: Results from the SpARRO cohort. RMD Open. 2024;10:e003841 (Apr 5). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003841 Source

Key clinical point: Deucravacitinib improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for physical and social functioning, mental health, fatigue, and pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 16, 6 mg deucravacitinib vs placebo led to significant changes in functional ability as assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (−0.26; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.10) and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical component summary (3.3; 95% CI 0.9 to 5.7), with similar outcomes for 12 mg deucravacitinib. Improvements were also noted in mental health and quality of life at week 16 with deucravacitinib vs placebo.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2, double-blind trial that included 203 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 6 mg deucravacitinib daily (n = 70), 12 mg deucravacitinib daily (n = 67), or placebo (n = 66) for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Strand V, Gossec L, Coates LC, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes after treatment with deucravacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results from a randomized phase 2 trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (Mar 26). doi: 10.1002/acr.25333  Source

Key clinical point: Deucravacitinib improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for physical and social functioning, mental health, fatigue, and pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 16, 6 mg deucravacitinib vs placebo led to significant changes in functional ability as assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (−0.26; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.10) and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical component summary (3.3; 95% CI 0.9 to 5.7), with similar outcomes for 12 mg deucravacitinib. Improvements were also noted in mental health and quality of life at week 16 with deucravacitinib vs placebo.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2, double-blind trial that included 203 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 6 mg deucravacitinib daily (n = 70), 12 mg deucravacitinib daily (n = 67), or placebo (n = 66) for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Strand V, Gossec L, Coates LC, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes after treatment with deucravacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results from a randomized phase 2 trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (Mar 26). doi: 10.1002/acr.25333  Source

Key clinical point: Deucravacitinib improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for physical and social functioning, mental health, fatigue, and pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 16, 6 mg deucravacitinib vs placebo led to significant changes in functional ability as assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (−0.26; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.10) and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical component summary (3.3; 95% CI 0.9 to 5.7), with similar outcomes for 12 mg deucravacitinib. Improvements were also noted in mental health and quality of life at week 16 with deucravacitinib vs placebo.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2, double-blind trial that included 203 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 6 mg deucravacitinib daily (n = 70), 12 mg deucravacitinib daily (n = 67), or placebo (n = 66) for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Strand V, Gossec L, Coates LC, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes after treatment with deucravacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results from a randomized phase 2 trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (Mar 26). doi: 10.1002/acr.25333  Source

Key clinical point: Among biologic-naive, guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), enthesitis resolution (ER) was associated with dactylitis resolution (DR), and those achieving ER or DR showed improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Major finding: At weeks 24, 52, and 100, guselkumab-treated patients who achieved DR were more likely to achieve ER, and vice versa (all P < .05). At week 24, a higher proportion of patients who did vs did not achieve ER reported minimal pain (30%-45% vs 11%-21%; all P < .001), with similar pain outcomes in patients who did vs did not achieve DR.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 739 biologic-naive patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab (100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks) or placebo with crossover to guselkumab (100 mg every 4 weeks) at week 24, of whom 68.6% and 44.9% of patients had enthesitis and dactylitis, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Six authors declared being employees of Janssen and owning Johnson and Johnson stock or stock options. The other authors declared receiving consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Rahman P, McInnes IB, Deodhar A, et al. Association between enthesitis/dactylitis resolution and patient-reported outcomes in guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2024;43:1591-1604 (Mar 12). doi: 10.1007/s10067-024-06921-8  Source

Key clinical point: Among biologic-naive, guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), enthesitis resolution (ER) was associated with dactylitis resolution (DR), and those achieving ER or DR showed improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Major finding: At weeks 24, 52, and 100, guselkumab-treated patients who achieved DR were more likely to achieve ER, and vice versa (all P < .05). At week 24, a higher proportion of patients who did vs did not achieve ER reported minimal pain (30%-45% vs 11%-21%; all P < .001), with similar pain outcomes in patients who did vs did not achieve DR.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 739 biologic-naive patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab (100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks) or placebo with crossover to guselkumab (100 mg every 4 weeks) at week 24, of whom 68.6% and 44.9% of patients had enthesitis and dactylitis, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Six authors declared being employees of Janssen and owning Johnson and Johnson stock or stock options. The other authors declared receiving consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Rahman P, McInnes IB, Deodhar A, et al. Association between enthesitis/dactylitis resolution and patient-reported outcomes in guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2024;43:1591-1604 (Mar 12). doi: 10.1007/s10067-024-06921-8  Source

Key clinical point: Among biologic-naive, guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), enthesitis resolution (ER) was associated with dactylitis resolution (DR), and those achieving ER or DR showed improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Major finding: At weeks 24, 52, and 100, guselkumab-treated patients who achieved DR were more likely to achieve ER, and vice versa (all P < .05). At week 24, a higher proportion of patients who did vs did not achieve ER reported minimal pain (30%-45% vs 11%-21%; all P < .001), with similar pain outcomes in patients who did vs did not achieve DR.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 739 biologic-naive patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab (100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks) or placebo with crossover to guselkumab (100 mg every 4 weeks) at week 24, of whom 68.6% and 44.9% of patients had enthesitis and dactylitis, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Six authors declared being employees of Janssen and owning Johnson and Johnson stock or stock options. The other authors declared receiving consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Rahman P, McInnes IB, Deodhar A, et al. Association between enthesitis/dactylitis resolution and patient-reported outcomes in guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2024;43:1591-1604 (Mar 12). doi: 10.1007/s10067-024-06921-8  Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab treatment led to durable improvements in key Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA)-recognized domains through 2 years and showed a consistent safety profile in biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor-naive patients with active PsA.

Major finding: At week 100, more than 50% of patients receiving guselkumab (100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks) achieved  achieved a low PsA Disease Activity Index, had enthesitis resolution, dactylitis resolution, and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. No new safety signals were observed.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 442 biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor-naive patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response or intolerance to standard nonbiologics who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development (R&D), LLC. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen R&D and owning Johnson and Johnson stocks or stock options. Several authors declared receiving honoraria from or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Coates LC, Gossec L, Zimmermann M, et al. Guselkumab provides durable improvement across psoriatic arthritis disease domains: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. RMD Open. 2024;10:e003977 (Mar 26). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003977 Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab treatment led to durable improvements in key Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA)-recognized domains through 2 years and showed a consistent safety profile in biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor-naive patients with active PsA.

Major finding: At week 100, more than 50% of patients receiving guselkumab (100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks) achieved  achieved a low PsA Disease Activity Index, had enthesitis resolution, dactylitis resolution, and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. No new safety signals were observed.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 442 biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor-naive patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response or intolerance to standard nonbiologics who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development (R&D), LLC. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen R&D and owning Johnson and Johnson stocks or stock options. Several authors declared receiving honoraria from or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Coates LC, Gossec L, Zimmermann M, et al. Guselkumab provides durable improvement across psoriatic arthritis disease domains: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. RMD Open. 2024;10:e003977 (Mar 26). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003977 Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab treatment led to durable improvements in key Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA)-recognized domains through 2 years and showed a consistent safety profile in biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor-naive patients with active PsA.

Major finding: At week 100, more than 50% of patients receiving guselkumab (100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks) achieved  achieved a low PsA Disease Activity Index, had enthesitis resolution, dactylitis resolution, and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. No new safety signals were observed.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 442 biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor-naive patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response or intolerance to standard nonbiologics who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development (R&D), LLC. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen R&D and owning Johnson and Johnson stocks or stock options. Several authors declared receiving honoraria from or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Coates LC, Gossec L, Zimmermann M, et al. Guselkumab provides durable improvement across psoriatic arthritis disease domains: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. RMD Open. 2024;10:e003977 (Mar 26). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003977 Source