Rheumatology News

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

How best to define axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) flares in practice remains the subject of some debate as evidenced by the discussion that followed an abstract presentation at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

It’s an important topic, said Maxime Breban, MD, PhD, of Ambroise Paré Hospital in Paris, as flares can adversely affect patient outcomes. The absence of flares may also a useful measure of how well a patient is responding to treatment in clinical trials and whether a treatment can be tapered.

“There have been many ways to define flares in the past and there is no consensus,” he observed.

Although the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) devised 12 preliminary definitions of flare in 2016, “these were not that good when we moved to patients,” Dr. Breban suggested.

The ASAS definitions were based on patient vignettes, he explained, and used a combination of variables from the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP).

The study that Dr. Breban presented looked at the performance of the ASAS preliminary definitions of axSpA flares in a real-life patient population, as well as prospectively determining how variations in BASDAI and VAS pain were associated with patient-perceived flares of disease.

A total of 99 patients took part in the study, recruited through a secure e-health platform called SPONDY+. Once a week, patients completed the BASDAI questionnaire and the pain VAS, and stated whether their disease had flared in the past week.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to see how well the BASDAI and pain VAS identified patients who were experiencing a flare or had a recently resolved flare of axSpA.

Dr. Breban reported that variation in the BASDAI “appears a suitable variable to monitor the occurrence and resolution of patient-reported flare in axial spondylarthritis.”

In predicting a flare, the area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for the change in BASDAI than for the change in pain VAS, at a respective 0.81 and 0.77 (P = .01). However, both variables were similarly accurate in predicting the resolution of a flare, with respective AUCs of 0.78 and 0.80 (P = .3).

A 0.22-point increase in BASDAI was reported to be the best balance between sensitivity (70%) and specificity (79%) for a flare. However, this is “outside of what is possible within a test–retest situation,” Désirée van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said during discussion.

Dr. van der Heijde told Dr. Breban: “I understand that that comes out of your data, that that’s the best combination for sensitivity and specificity, but the next step is to decide if that makes sense.”

The ROC curves that Dr. Breban presented showed the range of sensitivities and specificities that could be achieved. If the specificity was increased to be 90% or higher, the specificity fell to 55%, with the change in BASDAI being an increase of 0.8 points. Conversely, bringing the sensitivity above 90% meant the specificity dropped to 39% and the change in BASDAI was a decrease of 0.1 point.

“So that means you can choose whatever you want as a cutoff,” Dr. Breban said. It depends on what you are aiming to do. “If you want to identify a flare, you can increase sensitivity, or specificity, according to what your purpose is,” he suggested.

“The next step, of course, is what to choose as a flare. Then it depends on how you want to use a flare if you want to use a flare to change the treatment,” agreed Dr. van der Heijde. “That was why, in the ASAS group, it was decided to have a high specificity so that you are not changing treatment all the time.”

In the data that Dr. Breban presented, the ASAS preliminary definitions were highly specific but lacked sensitivity. None of the ASAS definitions yielded sensitivity values higher than 37%, whereas specificity was higher than 95% for all of them.

The study’s design did not allow researchers to test the ASDAS-CRP as a definition of flare in its real-world patient sample. Thus, it is looking only at the patient’s perspective on flare, and there is a “huge discrepancy” between patient and physician-reported disease activity, Dr. van der Heijde noted. “So, I think before using your data to really choose the flare definition, I think we need to take it all into account.”

Maxime Dougados, MD, PhD, of Cochin Hospital in Paris, who has been “deeply involved in the elaboration of the definition of flare” added his thoughts: “Flare means for me, not a status, but a change,” he observed.

But if the aim of treating people with axSpA is to achieve a good or acceptable state of health, he questioned whether work should be continued to define the concept of a flare.

The definition of a flare was conceived for use in clinical trials mainly, Dr. van der Heijde noted. It helped to assess how changes in treatment might affect the outcomes of patients. In clinical practice, especially now with treat-to-target gaining more and more traction in axSpA, she agreed that perhaps the goal should be to focus more on the health status of patients.

Dr. Breban acknowledged that the SPONDY+ platform has been developed by bepatient with support from Merck Sharp & Dohme. No other disclosures were made.

How best to define axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) flares in practice remains the subject of some debate as evidenced by the discussion that followed an abstract presentation at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

It’s an important topic, said Maxime Breban, MD, PhD, of Ambroise Paré Hospital in Paris, as flares can adversely affect patient outcomes. The absence of flares may also a useful measure of how well a patient is responding to treatment in clinical trials and whether a treatment can be tapered.

“There have been many ways to define flares in the past and there is no consensus,” he observed.

Although the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) devised 12 preliminary definitions of flare in 2016, “these were not that good when we moved to patients,” Dr. Breban suggested.

The ASAS definitions were based on patient vignettes, he explained, and used a combination of variables from the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP).

The study that Dr. Breban presented looked at the performance of the ASAS preliminary definitions of axSpA flares in a real-life patient population, as well as prospectively determining how variations in BASDAI and VAS pain were associated with patient-perceived flares of disease.

A total of 99 patients took part in the study, recruited through a secure e-health platform called SPONDY+. Once a week, patients completed the BASDAI questionnaire and the pain VAS, and stated whether their disease had flared in the past week.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to see how well the BASDAI and pain VAS identified patients who were experiencing a flare or had a recently resolved flare of axSpA.

Dr. Breban reported that variation in the BASDAI “appears a suitable variable to monitor the occurrence and resolution of patient-reported flare in axial spondylarthritis.”

In predicting a flare, the area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for the change in BASDAI than for the change in pain VAS, at a respective 0.81 and 0.77 (P = .01). However, both variables were similarly accurate in predicting the resolution of a flare, with respective AUCs of 0.78 and 0.80 (P = .3).

A 0.22-point increase in BASDAI was reported to be the best balance between sensitivity (70%) and specificity (79%) for a flare. However, this is “outside of what is possible within a test–retest situation,” Désirée van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said during discussion.

Dr. van der Heijde told Dr. Breban: “I understand that that comes out of your data, that that’s the best combination for sensitivity and specificity, but the next step is to decide if that makes sense.”

The ROC curves that Dr. Breban presented showed the range of sensitivities and specificities that could be achieved. If the specificity was increased to be 90% or higher, the specificity fell to 55%, with the change in BASDAI being an increase of 0.8 points. Conversely, bringing the sensitivity above 90% meant the specificity dropped to 39% and the change in BASDAI was a decrease of 0.1 point.

“So that means you can choose whatever you want as a cutoff,” Dr. Breban said. It depends on what you are aiming to do. “If you want to identify a flare, you can increase sensitivity, or specificity, according to what your purpose is,” he suggested.

“The next step, of course, is what to choose as a flare. Then it depends on how you want to use a flare if you want to use a flare to change the treatment,” agreed Dr. van der Heijde. “That was why, in the ASAS group, it was decided to have a high specificity so that you are not changing treatment all the time.”

In the data that Dr. Breban presented, the ASAS preliminary definitions were highly specific but lacked sensitivity. None of the ASAS definitions yielded sensitivity values higher than 37%, whereas specificity was higher than 95% for all of them.

The study’s design did not allow researchers to test the ASDAS-CRP as a definition of flare in its real-world patient sample. Thus, it is looking only at the patient’s perspective on flare, and there is a “huge discrepancy” between patient and physician-reported disease activity, Dr. van der Heijde noted. “So, I think before using your data to really choose the flare definition, I think we need to take it all into account.”

Maxime Dougados, MD, PhD, of Cochin Hospital in Paris, who has been “deeply involved in the elaboration of the definition of flare” added his thoughts: “Flare means for me, not a status, but a change,” he observed.

But if the aim of treating people with axSpA is to achieve a good or acceptable state of health, he questioned whether work should be continued to define the concept of a flare.

The definition of a flare was conceived for use in clinical trials mainly, Dr. van der Heijde noted. It helped to assess how changes in treatment might affect the outcomes of patients. In clinical practice, especially now with treat-to-target gaining more and more traction in axSpA, she agreed that perhaps the goal should be to focus more on the health status of patients.

Dr. Breban acknowledged that the SPONDY+ platform has been developed by bepatient with support from Merck Sharp & Dohme. No other disclosures were made.

How best to define axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) flares in practice remains the subject of some debate as evidenced by the discussion that followed an abstract presentation at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

It’s an important topic, said Maxime Breban, MD, PhD, of Ambroise Paré Hospital in Paris, as flares can adversely affect patient outcomes. The absence of flares may also a useful measure of how well a patient is responding to treatment in clinical trials and whether a treatment can be tapered.

“There have been many ways to define flares in the past and there is no consensus,” he observed.

Although the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) devised 12 preliminary definitions of flare in 2016, “these were not that good when we moved to patients,” Dr. Breban suggested.

The ASAS definitions were based on patient vignettes, he explained, and used a combination of variables from the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP).

The study that Dr. Breban presented looked at the performance of the ASAS preliminary definitions of axSpA flares in a real-life patient population, as well as prospectively determining how variations in BASDAI and VAS pain were associated with patient-perceived flares of disease.

A total of 99 patients took part in the study, recruited through a secure e-health platform called SPONDY+. Once a week, patients completed the BASDAI questionnaire and the pain VAS, and stated whether their disease had flared in the past week.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to see how well the BASDAI and pain VAS identified patients who were experiencing a flare or had a recently resolved flare of axSpA.

Dr. Breban reported that variation in the BASDAI “appears a suitable variable to monitor the occurrence and resolution of patient-reported flare in axial spondylarthritis.”

In predicting a flare, the area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for the change in BASDAI than for the change in pain VAS, at a respective 0.81 and 0.77 (P = .01). However, both variables were similarly accurate in predicting the resolution of a flare, with respective AUCs of 0.78 and 0.80 (P = .3).

A 0.22-point increase in BASDAI was reported to be the best balance between sensitivity (70%) and specificity (79%) for a flare. However, this is “outside of what is possible within a test–retest situation,” Désirée van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said during discussion.

Dr. van der Heijde told Dr. Breban: “I understand that that comes out of your data, that that’s the best combination for sensitivity and specificity, but the next step is to decide if that makes sense.”

The ROC curves that Dr. Breban presented showed the range of sensitivities and specificities that could be achieved. If the specificity was increased to be 90% or higher, the specificity fell to 55%, with the change in BASDAI being an increase of 0.8 points. Conversely, bringing the sensitivity above 90% meant the specificity dropped to 39% and the change in BASDAI was a decrease of 0.1 point.

“So that means you can choose whatever you want as a cutoff,” Dr. Breban said. It depends on what you are aiming to do. “If you want to identify a flare, you can increase sensitivity, or specificity, according to what your purpose is,” he suggested.

“The next step, of course, is what to choose as a flare. Then it depends on how you want to use a flare if you want to use a flare to change the treatment,” agreed Dr. van der Heijde. “That was why, in the ASAS group, it was decided to have a high specificity so that you are not changing treatment all the time.”

In the data that Dr. Breban presented, the ASAS preliminary definitions were highly specific but lacked sensitivity. None of the ASAS definitions yielded sensitivity values higher than 37%, whereas specificity was higher than 95% for all of them.

The study’s design did not allow researchers to test the ASDAS-CRP as a definition of flare in its real-world patient sample. Thus, it is looking only at the patient’s perspective on flare, and there is a “huge discrepancy” between patient and physician-reported disease activity, Dr. van der Heijde noted. “So, I think before using your data to really choose the flare definition, I think we need to take it all into account.”

Maxime Dougados, MD, PhD, of Cochin Hospital in Paris, who has been “deeply involved in the elaboration of the definition of flare” added his thoughts: “Flare means for me, not a status, but a change,” he observed.

But if the aim of treating people with axSpA is to achieve a good or acceptable state of health, he questioned whether work should be continued to define the concept of a flare.

The definition of a flare was conceived for use in clinical trials mainly, Dr. van der Heijde noted. It helped to assess how changes in treatment might affect the outcomes of patients. In clinical practice, especially now with treat-to-target gaining more and more traction in axSpA, she agreed that perhaps the goal should be to focus more on the health status of patients.

Dr. Breban acknowledged that the SPONDY+ platform has been developed by bepatient with support from Merck Sharp & Dohme. No other disclosures were made.

The gut microbiome, previously shown to have an association with rheumatoid arthritis, may also provide signals of a patient’s disease prognosis, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have reported.

“We found that the gut microbiome is linked to whether patients with RA improve in their clinical symptoms or not,” cosenior author Jaeyun Sung, PhD, said in an interview. “We found features of the gut microbiome that linked to improvement, and we also put those features in a machine-learning model that can actually predict improvement at a follow-up visit.” Dr. Sung is a computational biologist with Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine in Rochester, Minn.

The retrospective, observational cohort study included 32 patients diagnosed with RA between 1988 and 2014. The researchers performed meta-genome shotgun sequencing on 64 stool samples kept in a biobank and collected at two separate visits 6-12 months apart. Dr. Sung and colleagues observed significantly different microbiome traits between patients who eventually showed minimally clinically important improvement and those who didn’t.

KATERYNA KON/Science SourceSource

The study also provided a proof of concept for using machine-learning technology to analyze the gut microbiome to predict the course of the disease, Dr. Sung said.

Cosenior author John M. Davis III, MD, a clinical rheumatologist and rheumatology research chair of the Mayo Clinic, noted that their own previous study had confirmed dysbiosis in people with RA when compared with controls. “We had some preliminary insight that it may be linked to some extent to the disease state and maybe treatments,” Dr. Davis said. “So that led us to hypothesize that there may be an association between the gut microbiome and response to treatment or disease activity over time.”

The study found that age was the dominant factor in determining variations in the gut microbiome composition, but the next prevailing factor was minimum clinically important improvement status, which 12 of the 32 study participants achieved at their follow-up visits. At baseline, all patients were on some type of treatment – either biologic or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, 46.9% and 87.5%, respectively), or prednisone (46.9%).
 

Gut microbiome composition

The patients who achieved minimum clinically important improvement had an average decline in Clinical Disease Activity Index of 16.7 units (standard deviation, 12.8) versus a gain of 5.7 (SD, 8.9) in the remaining patients. The study found higher species-level alpha diversity and richness and higher beta diversity in the group that achieved minimum clinically important improvement, compared with those who did not.

They identified six microbial taxa as higher in abundance in the improved patients: Negativicutes (class); Selenomonadales (order); Prevotellaceae (family); Coprococcus (genus); Bacteroides sp. 3_1_19 (species); and Bilophila sp. 4_1_30 (species). In the patients who showed no improvement, Eubacterium sp. 3_1_31 (species) was found to be higher (P < .05). They also found 15 metabolic pathways that were differently abundant between the two groups at baseline.

Two things make this study different from other studies of the gut microbiome in RA, Dr. Sung said: It didn’t have a control group, only RA patients, and it didn’t evaluate a specific drug in RA patients.

“We’re thinking beyond just drug or treatment, independent of prior treatment, independent of prior clinical measurements, independent of age, sex, and other factors, can we predict RA response just using the gut microbiome alone?” Dr. Sung said. “Is there an association between clinical improvement and the gut microbiome?”

The study also showed that the microbiome may be a modifiable target for RA, Dr. Davis said.

“This research is attractive because it may complement medical treatment for RA if we can identify dietary modifications,” he said. “Still, there’s the question if probiotics or prebiotics can influence the gut. Can we modify the gut microbiome to further ameliorate the disease state? That’s something I think is an open question that’s specifically called out in our paper.”

This study included patients with long-term disease, but the group’s ongoing research is focusing on patients with earlier-stage RA, Dr. Davis said. “The next steps have to be in validating [the findings] in additional and external populations and looking at patients with very early disease where a lot of the decision-making is very active and happening in real time.”

James T. Rosenbaum, MD, an ophthalmologist and rheumatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, acknowledged that this is the first study in RA to find an effect on the gut microbiome using the minimum clinically important improvement endpoint.

“It also raises a ‘chicken-egg’ dilemma,” Dr. Rosenbaum said in an interview. “Did the patients improve and then their microbiome changed, or was the microbiome the first change that led to the clinical improvement? If the latter is correct, we potentially could alter the microbiome, for example, by diet, to treat rheumatic disease.”

He noted that studies with fecal transplants for ulcerative colitis support the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification. “But,” he added, “we are still a long way from putting this in practice.”

“The outcome is promising,” Claudia Mauri, PhD, a professor of immunology at University College London, said of the study. “Obviously, if this can be repeated in a very large cohort of patients, it would give us the possibility to be able to, based on the composition of the microbiota, to predict who is going to respond to treatment or not.”

She noted that, while RA has a broader array of available treatments than other autoimmune diseases, some RA patients don’t respond their first biologic treatment. “If from the outset we would be able to see who may not respond based on the microbiota, we may prepare physicians to better target these patients by, for example, offering them an alternative second biologic agent,” Dr. Mauri said.

Dr. Davis reported receiving research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Sung and other study coauthors have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that the National Institutes of Health supports his research. Dr. Mauri has no financial relationships to disclose.

The gut microbiome, previously shown to have an association with rheumatoid arthritis, may also provide signals of a patient’s disease prognosis, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have reported.

“We found that the gut microbiome is linked to whether patients with RA improve in their clinical symptoms or not,” cosenior author Jaeyun Sung, PhD, said in an interview. “We found features of the gut microbiome that linked to improvement, and we also put those features in a machine-learning model that can actually predict improvement at a follow-up visit.” Dr. Sung is a computational biologist with Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine in Rochester, Minn.

The retrospective, observational cohort study included 32 patients diagnosed with RA between 1988 and 2014. The researchers performed meta-genome shotgun sequencing on 64 stool samples kept in a biobank and collected at two separate visits 6-12 months apart. Dr. Sung and colleagues observed significantly different microbiome traits between patients who eventually showed minimally clinically important improvement and those who didn’t.

KATERYNA KON/Science SourceSource

The study also provided a proof of concept for using machine-learning technology to analyze the gut microbiome to predict the course of the disease, Dr. Sung said.

Cosenior author John M. Davis III, MD, a clinical rheumatologist and rheumatology research chair of the Mayo Clinic, noted that their own previous study had confirmed dysbiosis in people with RA when compared with controls. “We had some preliminary insight that it may be linked to some extent to the disease state and maybe treatments,” Dr. Davis said. “So that led us to hypothesize that there may be an association between the gut microbiome and response to treatment or disease activity over time.”

The study found that age was the dominant factor in determining variations in the gut microbiome composition, but the next prevailing factor was minimum clinically important improvement status, which 12 of the 32 study participants achieved at their follow-up visits. At baseline, all patients were on some type of treatment – either biologic or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, 46.9% and 87.5%, respectively), or prednisone (46.9%).
 

Gut microbiome composition

The patients who achieved minimum clinically important improvement had an average decline in Clinical Disease Activity Index of 16.7 units (standard deviation, 12.8) versus a gain of 5.7 (SD, 8.9) in the remaining patients. The study found higher species-level alpha diversity and richness and higher beta diversity in the group that achieved minimum clinically important improvement, compared with those who did not.

They identified six microbial taxa as higher in abundance in the improved patients: Negativicutes (class); Selenomonadales (order); Prevotellaceae (family); Coprococcus (genus); Bacteroides sp. 3_1_19 (species); and Bilophila sp. 4_1_30 (species). In the patients who showed no improvement, Eubacterium sp. 3_1_31 (species) was found to be higher (P < .05). They also found 15 metabolic pathways that were differently abundant between the two groups at baseline.

Two things make this study different from other studies of the gut microbiome in RA, Dr. Sung said: It didn’t have a control group, only RA patients, and it didn’t evaluate a specific drug in RA patients.

“We’re thinking beyond just drug or treatment, independent of prior treatment, independent of prior clinical measurements, independent of age, sex, and other factors, can we predict RA response just using the gut microbiome alone?” Dr. Sung said. “Is there an association between clinical improvement and the gut microbiome?”

The study also showed that the microbiome may be a modifiable target for RA, Dr. Davis said.

“This research is attractive because it may complement medical treatment for RA if we can identify dietary modifications,” he said. “Still, there’s the question if probiotics or prebiotics can influence the gut. Can we modify the gut microbiome to further ameliorate the disease state? That’s something I think is an open question that’s specifically called out in our paper.”

This study included patients with long-term disease, but the group’s ongoing research is focusing on patients with earlier-stage RA, Dr. Davis said. “The next steps have to be in validating [the findings] in additional and external populations and looking at patients with very early disease where a lot of the decision-making is very active and happening in real time.”

James T. Rosenbaum, MD, an ophthalmologist and rheumatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, acknowledged that this is the first study in RA to find an effect on the gut microbiome using the minimum clinically important improvement endpoint.

“It also raises a ‘chicken-egg’ dilemma,” Dr. Rosenbaum said in an interview. “Did the patients improve and then their microbiome changed, or was the microbiome the first change that led to the clinical improvement? If the latter is correct, we potentially could alter the microbiome, for example, by diet, to treat rheumatic disease.”

He noted that studies with fecal transplants for ulcerative colitis support the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification. “But,” he added, “we are still a long way from putting this in practice.”

“The outcome is promising,” Claudia Mauri, PhD, a professor of immunology at University College London, said of the study. “Obviously, if this can be repeated in a very large cohort of patients, it would give us the possibility to be able to, based on the composition of the microbiota, to predict who is going to respond to treatment or not.”

She noted that, while RA has a broader array of available treatments than other autoimmune diseases, some RA patients don’t respond their first biologic treatment. “If from the outset we would be able to see who may not respond based on the microbiota, we may prepare physicians to better target these patients by, for example, offering them an alternative second biologic agent,” Dr. Mauri said.

Dr. Davis reported receiving research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Sung and other study coauthors have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that the National Institutes of Health supports his research. Dr. Mauri has no financial relationships to disclose.

The gut microbiome, previously shown to have an association with rheumatoid arthritis, may also provide signals of a patient’s disease prognosis, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have reported.

“We found that the gut microbiome is linked to whether patients with RA improve in their clinical symptoms or not,” cosenior author Jaeyun Sung, PhD, said in an interview. “We found features of the gut microbiome that linked to improvement, and we also put those features in a machine-learning model that can actually predict improvement at a follow-up visit.” Dr. Sung is a computational biologist with Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine in Rochester, Minn.

The retrospective, observational cohort study included 32 patients diagnosed with RA between 1988 and 2014. The researchers performed meta-genome shotgun sequencing on 64 stool samples kept in a biobank and collected at two separate visits 6-12 months apart. Dr. Sung and colleagues observed significantly different microbiome traits between patients who eventually showed minimally clinically important improvement and those who didn’t.

KATERYNA KON/Science SourceSource

The study also provided a proof of concept for using machine-learning technology to analyze the gut microbiome to predict the course of the disease, Dr. Sung said.

Cosenior author John M. Davis III, MD, a clinical rheumatologist and rheumatology research chair of the Mayo Clinic, noted that their own previous study had confirmed dysbiosis in people with RA when compared with controls. “We had some preliminary insight that it may be linked to some extent to the disease state and maybe treatments,” Dr. Davis said. “So that led us to hypothesize that there may be an association between the gut microbiome and response to treatment or disease activity over time.”

The study found that age was the dominant factor in determining variations in the gut microbiome composition, but the next prevailing factor was minimum clinically important improvement status, which 12 of the 32 study participants achieved at their follow-up visits. At baseline, all patients were on some type of treatment – either biologic or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, 46.9% and 87.5%, respectively), or prednisone (46.9%).
 

Gut microbiome composition

The patients who achieved minimum clinically important improvement had an average decline in Clinical Disease Activity Index of 16.7 units (standard deviation, 12.8) versus a gain of 5.7 (SD, 8.9) in the remaining patients. The study found higher species-level alpha diversity and richness and higher beta diversity in the group that achieved minimum clinically important improvement, compared with those who did not.

They identified six microbial taxa as higher in abundance in the improved patients: Negativicutes (class); Selenomonadales (order); Prevotellaceae (family); Coprococcus (genus); Bacteroides sp. 3_1_19 (species); and Bilophila sp. 4_1_30 (species). In the patients who showed no improvement, Eubacterium sp. 3_1_31 (species) was found to be higher (P < .05). They also found 15 metabolic pathways that were differently abundant between the two groups at baseline.

Two things make this study different from other studies of the gut microbiome in RA, Dr. Sung said: It didn’t have a control group, only RA patients, and it didn’t evaluate a specific drug in RA patients.

“We’re thinking beyond just drug or treatment, independent of prior treatment, independent of prior clinical measurements, independent of age, sex, and other factors, can we predict RA response just using the gut microbiome alone?” Dr. Sung said. “Is there an association between clinical improvement and the gut microbiome?”

The study also showed that the microbiome may be a modifiable target for RA, Dr. Davis said.

“This research is attractive because it may complement medical treatment for RA if we can identify dietary modifications,” he said. “Still, there’s the question if probiotics or prebiotics can influence the gut. Can we modify the gut microbiome to further ameliorate the disease state? That’s something I think is an open question that’s specifically called out in our paper.”

This study included patients with long-term disease, but the group’s ongoing research is focusing on patients with earlier-stage RA, Dr. Davis said. “The next steps have to be in validating [the findings] in additional and external populations and looking at patients with very early disease where a lot of the decision-making is very active and happening in real time.”

James T. Rosenbaum, MD, an ophthalmologist and rheumatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, acknowledged that this is the first study in RA to find an effect on the gut microbiome using the minimum clinically important improvement endpoint.

“It also raises a ‘chicken-egg’ dilemma,” Dr. Rosenbaum said in an interview. “Did the patients improve and then their microbiome changed, or was the microbiome the first change that led to the clinical improvement? If the latter is correct, we potentially could alter the microbiome, for example, by diet, to treat rheumatic disease.”

He noted that studies with fecal transplants for ulcerative colitis support the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification. “But,” he added, “we are still a long way from putting this in practice.”

“The outcome is promising,” Claudia Mauri, PhD, a professor of immunology at University College London, said of the study. “Obviously, if this can be repeated in a very large cohort of patients, it would give us the possibility to be able to, based on the composition of the microbiota, to predict who is going to respond to treatment or not.”

She noted that, while RA has a broader array of available treatments than other autoimmune diseases, some RA patients don’t respond their first biologic treatment. “If from the outset we would be able to see who may not respond based on the microbiota, we may prepare physicians to better target these patients by, for example, offering them an alternative second biologic agent,” Dr. Mauri said.

Dr. Davis reported receiving research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Sung and other study coauthors have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that the National Institutes of Health supports his research. Dr. Mauri has no financial relationships to disclose.

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.

Dr. Ziva Cooper

“While we know that one out of seven U.S. adults are using cannabidiol, we know very little about its therapeutic effects when given by itself for pain,” Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an associate professor at-large of psychology and behavioral science, said in an interview. (Dr. Cooper was not involved in the guideline development.)

“But patients tend to self-report that CBD is helpful, and at low doses, we know that it is unlikely to have adverse effects of any significant concern,” Dr. Cooper noted.

Depending on its components, medical cannabis is associated with a wide range of AEs. Studies comprising the evidence base for the guideline reported transient cognitive impairment (relative risk, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.06-5.38), vomiting (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.99), and drowsiness (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.95), attention impairment (RR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.67-9.74), and nausea (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99). Of note, findings of a subgroup analysis showed that the risk of dizziness increased with treatment duration, starting at 3 months (test of interaction P = .002).

However, Dr. Cooper explained that, because the included studies were inconsistent in terms of cannabis type (e.g., some looked at synthetic THC or THC-like substances where others looked at a THC/CBD combination) and formulation (capsules, oral mucosal sprays), it’s difficult to tease out component-specific AEs.

“These are really important things to note, especially when you think about different populations that might be using these types of medicines moving forward,” she said.

Toward that end, the guideline specifically states that there is “no reason why the expected benefits would be systematically different among adolescents and emerging adults.”

Among children with cancer, prior study findings reinforce the conclusion that benefits are similar to adults, but studies in this area are limited to end-of-life treatment, childhood cancer with primarily palliative intent, or progressive or relapsed cancer. Because THC’s safety profile is less certain in children, it’s also important to consider adverse neurocognitive effects before initiating a medical cannabis trial in this population.
 

Navigating the landscape

Although promising, the medical cannabis landscape is undoubtedly difficult to navigate, with land mines ranging from a limited inability to simply pick up a prescribing pad to quality control.

With the exception of three Food and Drug Administration–approved products – dronabinol, cannabidiol Rx, and nabilone – U.S. providers are only able to ‘certify,’ not prescribe, medical cannabis for chronic pain, and only if it is included within the state cannabis board’s list of eligible conditions. (A state-by-state guide is available.)

Dr. Jenny Wilkerson

Quality control also varies by product but is critical. “You want to look for certificates of quality assurance,” Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, a research assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. (Dr. Wilkerson was not involved in the guideline development.)

“A good dispensary should have that information or at least be willing to get that information, but generally speaking, that is something that patients need to ask for,” she emphasized, noting that “most available mass readouts are not divided by lots.”

Initial counseling and AE monitoring and regular follow-up is important, especially among patients who’ve never tried medical cannabis (or older patients whose prior experience may be limited to weaker recreational marijuana).

Notably, the reliance on medical dispensaries to deliver the right information at the right time may prove to be faulty. While recent data show that frontline dispensary workers regularly provide information to customers on their medical conditions and available products, they rarely, if ever, base recommendations on provider input, and never or rarely discuss potential AEs and other risks.

Per the new guideline, inexperienced patients should be seen monthly until a stable dose is achieved; longer times between visits can be considered in those who are more experienced. Still, patients should be advised to contact their provider when pain relief or other goals are insufficient, or when response or problematic AEs occur. This facilitates down-titration to a previously tolerated dose, up-titration in CBD and/or THC, or a different route of administration/formulation altogether.

Dr. Wilkerson pointed out that follow-up visits also provide an opportunity to do a blood draw and ask the lab to conduct pharmacokinetic analysis.

If possible, “ask patients to [ensure that they] take a standard dose before the visit so that the lab can assess the blood percentage of primary compounds and metabolites in the product that they are using,” she explained, noting that the information is helping to determine how “the different ratios may be affecting therapeutic response in individual patients.”

Granted, the guideline is only a start. But it is a good one.

“A lot of physicians want to be able to hang their hat on evidence of the safety and efficacy of these products, and the analysis that was leveraged for this guideline was very rigorous,” Dr. Cooper said.

Not only do they reinforce that “oral cannabinoids can produce small improvements in pain and provide a dosing structure that minimizes risk to the patient, [but they] should be able to help educate physicians who [are looking] for a sense of what the literature tells us at this time,” she added.

“With chronic pain, we often find that different treatments will show small potential benefits and they have a certain risk profile,” Dr. Busse said.

“It’s almost impossible to know what patients think about this option unless you present them with the evidence and ask them to make a decision based on their values and preferences,” he said.

The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research funded the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation to support the creation of the guideline. The center receives no funding from industry Dr. Busse, Dr. Cooper, and Dr. Wilkerson reported having no relevant financial relationships.

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.