Rheumatology News

The use of braces or insoles in combination with nonbiomechanical treatments appear to deliver the greatest pain relief for patients with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis, although the evidence supporting these interventions has a high degree of uncertainty, according findings from a large meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

“It’s been highlighted for several years now that due to the high rate of joint replacement, we need to promote more effective nonsurgical treatments,” Ans van Ginckel, PhD, of Ghent (Belgium) University, told the conference.

However, guidelines on the use of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain vary widely, and there are few studies that compare the effectiveness of different interventions.

To address this, Dr. van Ginckel and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized, controlled trials – involving a total of 2,413 participants – of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain. The treatments included were valgus braces, combined brace treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), lateral or medial wedged insoles, combined insole treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), contralateral cane use, gait retraining, and modified shoes.

“These treatments are mainly based on the premise that people with knee osteoarthritis likely experience a higher external knee adduction moment during walking, compared to healthy people,” Dr. van Ginckel told the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “This has been associated to some extent with disease onset, severity, and progression.”

When compared to nonbiomechanical controls, walking sticks and canes were the only intervention that showed a benefit in reducing pain, although the authors described the data supporting this as “high risk.”

When all the treatments were ranked according to the degree of pain relief seen in studies, combined insole and/or combined brace treatments showed the greatest degree of benefit.

However, Dr. van Ginckel said the evidence supporting even these treatments was of low to very low certainty, there was significant variation in the control treatments used in the studies, and the confidence intervals were wide. This also reflected the multifactorial nature of pain in knee OA, she said.

“A plausible explanation is the partial role in the biomechanics of the pathogenesis of pain and the multifactorial nature of pain,” she said.

Commenting on the study, Rik Lories, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and of the department of development and regeneration at Catholic University Leuven, said the findings of the analysis show how difficult it is to study biomechanical interventions for knee OA.

“It was a smart approach to try to get some more information about a wide array of studies that have been performed, being selective with regards to what to include,” Dr. Lories said. “It’s still a big challenge in terms of how do you control for confounders.”

Dr. Lories said that he took a positive view of the findings, suggesting that these interventions are unlikely to cause harm, and are therefore “not a road to avoid” in helping to reduce knee OA pain. But he also argued that the analysis pointed to a clear need for better studies of biomechanical interventions for knee OA. “I think that’s an important message that somehow the field has to improve the quality of their trials,” he said in an interview, although he acknowledged that such trials may be difficult to run and get funding for.

Dr. van Ginckel was supported by an EU Horizon 2020 fellowship, and a coauthor was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The use of braces or insoles in combination with nonbiomechanical treatments appear to deliver the greatest pain relief for patients with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis, although the evidence supporting these interventions has a high degree of uncertainty, according findings from a large meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

“It’s been highlighted for several years now that due to the high rate of joint replacement, we need to promote more effective nonsurgical treatments,” Ans van Ginckel, PhD, of Ghent (Belgium) University, told the conference.

However, guidelines on the use of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain vary widely, and there are few studies that compare the effectiveness of different interventions.

To address this, Dr. van Ginckel and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized, controlled trials – involving a total of 2,413 participants – of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain. The treatments included were valgus braces, combined brace treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), lateral or medial wedged insoles, combined insole treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), contralateral cane use, gait retraining, and modified shoes.

“These treatments are mainly based on the premise that people with knee osteoarthritis likely experience a higher external knee adduction moment during walking, compared to healthy people,” Dr. van Ginckel told the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “This has been associated to some extent with disease onset, severity, and progression.”

When compared to nonbiomechanical controls, walking sticks and canes were the only intervention that showed a benefit in reducing pain, although the authors described the data supporting this as “high risk.”

When all the treatments were ranked according to the degree of pain relief seen in studies, combined insole and/or combined brace treatments showed the greatest degree of benefit.

However, Dr. van Ginckel said the evidence supporting even these treatments was of low to very low certainty, there was significant variation in the control treatments used in the studies, and the confidence intervals were wide. This also reflected the multifactorial nature of pain in knee OA, she said.

“A plausible explanation is the partial role in the biomechanics of the pathogenesis of pain and the multifactorial nature of pain,” she said.

Commenting on the study, Rik Lories, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and of the department of development and regeneration at Catholic University Leuven, said the findings of the analysis show how difficult it is to study biomechanical interventions for knee OA.

“It was a smart approach to try to get some more information about a wide array of studies that have been performed, being selective with regards to what to include,” Dr. Lories said. “It’s still a big challenge in terms of how do you control for confounders.”

Dr. Lories said that he took a positive view of the findings, suggesting that these interventions are unlikely to cause harm, and are therefore “not a road to avoid” in helping to reduce knee OA pain. But he also argued that the analysis pointed to a clear need for better studies of biomechanical interventions for knee OA. “I think that’s an important message that somehow the field has to improve the quality of their trials,” he said in an interview, although he acknowledged that such trials may be difficult to run and get funding for.

Dr. van Ginckel was supported by an EU Horizon 2020 fellowship, and a coauthor was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The use of braces or insoles in combination with nonbiomechanical treatments appear to deliver the greatest pain relief for patients with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis, although the evidence supporting these interventions has a high degree of uncertainty, according findings from a large meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

“It’s been highlighted for several years now that due to the high rate of joint replacement, we need to promote more effective nonsurgical treatments,” Ans van Ginckel, PhD, of Ghent (Belgium) University, told the conference.

However, guidelines on the use of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain vary widely, and there are few studies that compare the effectiveness of different interventions.

To address this, Dr. van Ginckel and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized, controlled trials – involving a total of 2,413 participants – of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain. The treatments included were valgus braces, combined brace treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), lateral or medial wedged insoles, combined insole treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), contralateral cane use, gait retraining, and modified shoes.

“These treatments are mainly based on the premise that people with knee osteoarthritis likely experience a higher external knee adduction moment during walking, compared to healthy people,” Dr. van Ginckel told the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “This has been associated to some extent with disease onset, severity, and progression.”

When compared to nonbiomechanical controls, walking sticks and canes were the only intervention that showed a benefit in reducing pain, although the authors described the data supporting this as “high risk.”

When all the treatments were ranked according to the degree of pain relief seen in studies, combined insole and/or combined brace treatments showed the greatest degree of benefit.

However, Dr. van Ginckel said the evidence supporting even these treatments was of low to very low certainty, there was significant variation in the control treatments used in the studies, and the confidence intervals were wide. This also reflected the multifactorial nature of pain in knee OA, she said.

“A plausible explanation is the partial role in the biomechanics of the pathogenesis of pain and the multifactorial nature of pain,” she said.

Commenting on the study, Rik Lories, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and of the department of development and regeneration at Catholic University Leuven, said the findings of the analysis show how difficult it is to study biomechanical interventions for knee OA.

“It was a smart approach to try to get some more information about a wide array of studies that have been performed, being selective with regards to what to include,” Dr. Lories said. “It’s still a big challenge in terms of how do you control for confounders.”

Dr. Lories said that he took a positive view of the findings, suggesting that these interventions are unlikely to cause harm, and are therefore “not a road to avoid” in helping to reduce knee OA pain. But he also argued that the analysis pointed to a clear need for better studies of biomechanical interventions for knee OA. “I think that’s an important message that somehow the field has to improve the quality of their trials,” he said in an interview, although he acknowledged that such trials may be difficult to run and get funding for.

Dr. van Ginckel was supported by an EU Horizon 2020 fellowship, and a coauthor was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The serious infection risk associated with rituximab treatment for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is high but can be offset by co-prescribing co-trimoxazole, data from a single-center, retrospective study reaffirm.

Over the course of a 3-year study period, 14 (28%) of 50 patients with AAV treated with rituximab experienced at latest one severe infection defined as a grade 3 or higher event. The incidence of severe infections was 15.4 per 100 person-years.

However, a lower rate of infections was seen in patients who had been co-prescribed co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole), Francesco Dernie, a fifth-year medical student at the University of Oxford (England), reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“In the case of rituximab, the depletion of B cells and associated immune suppression is a double-edged sword, allowing effective disease control, but also leaving the body vulnerable to opportunistic and severe infections,” Mr. Dernie said at the meeting.

Of the patients who developed a severe infection on rituximab, just 7% had been treated with co-trimoxazole. In comparison, 44% of those who did not get a severe infection had received co-trimoxazole. Multivariate analysis confirmed that co-trimoxazole use was an influencing factor, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.096 (95% confidence interval, 0.009–0.996; P = .05).

Another finding was that patients with low immunoglobulin G levels (less than 6 g/L) were more likely to develop a severe infection than were those with higher IgG levels. Indeed, the OR for hypogammaglobulinemia and the risk for infection was 8.782 (95% CI, 1.19–64.6; P = .033).

“Our results support the monitoring of IgG levels to identify patients who may be more susceptible to infection, as well as the prescription of prophylactic co-trimoxazole to reduce overall severe infection risk,” Mr. Dernie and associates concluded in their abstract.

It’s a “really important message around co-trimoxazole,” observed Neil Basu, MBChB, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant at the Institute of Infection, Immunity & Inflammation, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“It still frustrates me when I see that patients haven’t received that while receiving rituximab. Of course, co-trimoxazole can have its problems,” said Dr. Basu, who was not involved in the study. “It’s not uncommon for patients to develop reactions or be intolerant to the drug.”

Raashid Luqmani, DM, a senior coauthor of the work and professor of rheumatology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, said: “The tolerance of co-trimoxazole has been remarkably good in this cohort.” If there was a problem with using co-trimoxazole, then “our standard would be to go with trimethoprim alone as the next in line and follow that with inhaled pentamidine. So, it’s kind of following what we would all generally do,” Dr. Luqmani said.

Study details

To look at the characteristics of and risk factors for serious infections associated with rituximab use in AAV, Mr. Dernie and associates retrospectively examined the electronic records of patients who had been treated between August 2016 and August 2019. Follow-up was until August 2020.

Of the 50 patients identified, nearly half (48%) were men. The average age was 60 years, ranging from 25 to 90 years. Most (n = 36; 72%) patients had a diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, while another 2 (4%) had microscopic polyangiitis, 1 (2%) had eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and 11 (22%) had an overlapping type of vasculitis or undefined AAV.

Of the 18 severe infection events recorded, most (56%) involved the respiratory tract. Less than one-third (28%) were sepsis or neutropenic sepsis events, and there was one case each (6%) of cellulitis, complicated urinary tract infection, and recurrent wound infection.

There were “small numbers of individual comorbidities that were not sufficient to enter into our regression analysis,” Mr. Dernie noted. “It’s likely that comorbid conditions such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] also contribute to an individual’s risk of developing severe infections, and thus should factor into their individualized management.”

Mr. Dernie acknowledged in discussion: “One of the limitations of the study was we just looked at patients in a time when they were receiving rituximab, so they may have historically been exposed to other treatment options.” However, he added, “they weren’t having any other major DMARDs or immunosuppressive treatments at the time.”

Dr. Luqmani observed: “If you look at Francesco’s data on the hypogammaglobulinemia at the start of rituximab, that probably gives you a good idea of just how immunosuppressed these patients were already before we got to this point.”

Dr. Luqmani added: “I suspect that’s in keeping with a lot of other centers that have started using rituximab an awful lot for patients who previously had episodes of vasculitis treated with other disease-modifying therapies, particularly cyclophosphamide.”

But for how long should co-trimoxazole be given after the last rituximab dose? asked the chair of the session, Richard Watts, DM, of Norwich (England) Medical School. These data are purely observational, so it’s not possible to say, Mr. Dernie noted: “The patients that we included as having co-trimoxazole seem to be on it more or less consistently, permanently,” he said.

What about the best dose? “It’s a tricky one,” Dr. Luqmani said, as “we not only use co-trimoxazole for prophylaxis, but we often also want to use it for treatment of the vasculitis itself.”

It’s very likely that there was a mix of patients in the analysis that had received co-trimoxazole as either a treatment or prophylaxis, which means different doses, he said.

“It might be interesting to know whether there was a difference” between doses used and the prevention of infection, added Dr. Luqmani, “but I suspect the numbers are too small to tell.”

Mr. Dernie, Dr. Luqmani, and the other coauthors had no disclosures.

The serious infection risk associated with rituximab treatment for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is high but can be offset by co-prescribing co-trimoxazole, data from a single-center, retrospective study reaffirm.

Over the course of a 3-year study period, 14 (28%) of 50 patients with AAV treated with rituximab experienced at latest one severe infection defined as a grade 3 or higher event. The incidence of severe infections was 15.4 per 100 person-years.

However, a lower rate of infections was seen in patients who had been co-prescribed co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole), Francesco Dernie, a fifth-year medical student at the University of Oxford (England), reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“In the case of rituximab, the depletion of B cells and associated immune suppression is a double-edged sword, allowing effective disease control, but also leaving the body vulnerable to opportunistic and severe infections,” Mr. Dernie said at the meeting.

Of the patients who developed a severe infection on rituximab, just 7% had been treated with co-trimoxazole. In comparison, 44% of those who did not get a severe infection had received co-trimoxazole. Multivariate analysis confirmed that co-trimoxazole use was an influencing factor, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.096 (95% confidence interval, 0.009–0.996; P = .05).

Another finding was that patients with low immunoglobulin G levels (less than 6 g/L) were more likely to develop a severe infection than were those with higher IgG levels. Indeed, the OR for hypogammaglobulinemia and the risk for infection was 8.782 (95% CI, 1.19–64.6; P = .033).

“Our results support the monitoring of IgG levels to identify patients who may be more susceptible to infection, as well as the prescription of prophylactic co-trimoxazole to reduce overall severe infection risk,” Mr. Dernie and associates concluded in their abstract.

It’s a “really important message around co-trimoxazole,” observed Neil Basu, MBChB, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant at the Institute of Infection, Immunity & Inflammation, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“It still frustrates me when I see that patients haven’t received that while receiving rituximab. Of course, co-trimoxazole can have its problems,” said Dr. Basu, who was not involved in the study. “It’s not uncommon for patients to develop reactions or be intolerant to the drug.”

Raashid Luqmani, DM, a senior coauthor of the work and professor of rheumatology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, said: “The tolerance of co-trimoxazole has been remarkably good in this cohort.” If there was a problem with using co-trimoxazole, then “our standard would be to go with trimethoprim alone as the next in line and follow that with inhaled pentamidine. So, it’s kind of following what we would all generally do,” Dr. Luqmani said.

Study details

To look at the characteristics of and risk factors for serious infections associated with rituximab use in AAV, Mr. Dernie and associates retrospectively examined the electronic records of patients who had been treated between August 2016 and August 2019. Follow-up was until August 2020.

Of the 50 patients identified, nearly half (48%) were men. The average age was 60 years, ranging from 25 to 90 years. Most (n = 36; 72%) patients had a diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, while another 2 (4%) had microscopic polyangiitis, 1 (2%) had eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and 11 (22%) had an overlapping type of vasculitis or undefined AAV.

Of the 18 severe infection events recorded, most (56%) involved the respiratory tract. Less than one-third (28%) were sepsis or neutropenic sepsis events, and there was one case each (6%) of cellulitis, complicated urinary tract infection, and recurrent wound infection.

There were “small numbers of individual comorbidities that were not sufficient to enter into our regression analysis,” Mr. Dernie noted. “It’s likely that comorbid conditions such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] also contribute to an individual’s risk of developing severe infections, and thus should factor into their individualized management.”

Mr. Dernie acknowledged in discussion: “One of the limitations of the study was we just looked at patients in a time when they were receiving rituximab, so they may have historically been exposed to other treatment options.” However, he added, “they weren’t having any other major DMARDs or immunosuppressive treatments at the time.”

Dr. Luqmani observed: “If you look at Francesco’s data on the hypogammaglobulinemia at the start of rituximab, that probably gives you a good idea of just how immunosuppressed these patients were already before we got to this point.”

Dr. Luqmani added: “I suspect that’s in keeping with a lot of other centers that have started using rituximab an awful lot for patients who previously had episodes of vasculitis treated with other disease-modifying therapies, particularly cyclophosphamide.”

But for how long should co-trimoxazole be given after the last rituximab dose? asked the chair of the session, Richard Watts, DM, of Norwich (England) Medical School. These data are purely observational, so it’s not possible to say, Mr. Dernie noted: “The patients that we included as having co-trimoxazole seem to be on it more or less consistently, permanently,” he said.

What about the best dose? “It’s a tricky one,” Dr. Luqmani said, as “we not only use co-trimoxazole for prophylaxis, but we often also want to use it for treatment of the vasculitis itself.”

It’s very likely that there was a mix of patients in the analysis that had received co-trimoxazole as either a treatment or prophylaxis, which means different doses, he said.

“It might be interesting to know whether there was a difference” between doses used and the prevention of infection, added Dr. Luqmani, “but I suspect the numbers are too small to tell.”

Mr. Dernie, Dr. Luqmani, and the other coauthors had no disclosures.

The serious infection risk associated with rituximab treatment for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is high but can be offset by co-prescribing co-trimoxazole, data from a single-center, retrospective study reaffirm.

Over the course of a 3-year study period, 14 (28%) of 50 patients with AAV treated with rituximab experienced at latest one severe infection defined as a grade 3 or higher event. The incidence of severe infections was 15.4 per 100 person-years.

However, a lower rate of infections was seen in patients who had been co-prescribed co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole), Francesco Dernie, a fifth-year medical student at the University of Oxford (England), reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“In the case of rituximab, the depletion of B cells and associated immune suppression is a double-edged sword, allowing effective disease control, but also leaving the body vulnerable to opportunistic and severe infections,” Mr. Dernie said at the meeting.

Of the patients who developed a severe infection on rituximab, just 7% had been treated with co-trimoxazole. In comparison, 44% of those who did not get a severe infection had received co-trimoxazole. Multivariate analysis confirmed that co-trimoxazole use was an influencing factor, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.096 (95% confidence interval, 0.009–0.996; P = .05).

Another finding was that patients with low immunoglobulin G levels (less than 6 g/L) were more likely to develop a severe infection than were those with higher IgG levels. Indeed, the OR for hypogammaglobulinemia and the risk for infection was 8.782 (95% CI, 1.19–64.6; P = .033).

“Our results support the monitoring of IgG levels to identify patients who may be more susceptible to infection, as well as the prescription of prophylactic co-trimoxazole to reduce overall severe infection risk,” Mr. Dernie and associates concluded in their abstract.

It’s a “really important message around co-trimoxazole,” observed Neil Basu, MBChB, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant at the Institute of Infection, Immunity & Inflammation, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“It still frustrates me when I see that patients haven’t received that while receiving rituximab. Of course, co-trimoxazole can have its problems,” said Dr. Basu, who was not involved in the study. “It’s not uncommon for patients to develop reactions or be intolerant to the drug.”

Raashid Luqmani, DM, a senior coauthor of the work and professor of rheumatology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, said: “The tolerance of co-trimoxazole has been remarkably good in this cohort.” If there was a problem with using co-trimoxazole, then “our standard would be to go with trimethoprim alone as the next in line and follow that with inhaled pentamidine. So, it’s kind of following what we would all generally do,” Dr. Luqmani said.

Study details

To look at the characteristics of and risk factors for serious infections associated with rituximab use in AAV, Mr. Dernie and associates retrospectively examined the electronic records of patients who had been treated between August 2016 and August 2019. Follow-up was until August 2020.

Of the 50 patients identified, nearly half (48%) were men. The average age was 60 years, ranging from 25 to 90 years. Most (n = 36; 72%) patients had a diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, while another 2 (4%) had microscopic polyangiitis, 1 (2%) had eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and 11 (22%) had an overlapping type of vasculitis or undefined AAV.

Of the 18 severe infection events recorded, most (56%) involved the respiratory tract. Less than one-third (28%) were sepsis or neutropenic sepsis events, and there was one case each (6%) of cellulitis, complicated urinary tract infection, and recurrent wound infection.

There were “small numbers of individual comorbidities that were not sufficient to enter into our regression analysis,” Mr. Dernie noted. “It’s likely that comorbid conditions such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] also contribute to an individual’s risk of developing severe infections, and thus should factor into their individualized management.”

Mr. Dernie acknowledged in discussion: “One of the limitations of the study was we just looked at patients in a time when they were receiving rituximab, so they may have historically been exposed to other treatment options.” However, he added, “they weren’t having any other major DMARDs or immunosuppressive treatments at the time.”

Dr. Luqmani observed: “If you look at Francesco’s data on the hypogammaglobulinemia at the start of rituximab, that probably gives you a good idea of just how immunosuppressed these patients were already before we got to this point.”

Dr. Luqmani added: “I suspect that’s in keeping with a lot of other centers that have started using rituximab an awful lot for patients who previously had episodes of vasculitis treated with other disease-modifying therapies, particularly cyclophosphamide.”

But for how long should co-trimoxazole be given after the last rituximab dose? asked the chair of the session, Richard Watts, DM, of Norwich (England) Medical School. These data are purely observational, so it’s not possible to say, Mr. Dernie noted: “The patients that we included as having co-trimoxazole seem to be on it more or less consistently, permanently,” he said.

What about the best dose? “It’s a tricky one,” Dr. Luqmani said, as “we not only use co-trimoxazole for prophylaxis, but we often also want to use it for treatment of the vasculitis itself.”

It’s very likely that there was a mix of patients in the analysis that had received co-trimoxazole as either a treatment or prophylaxis, which means different doses, he said.

“It might be interesting to know whether there was a difference” between doses used and the prevention of infection, added Dr. Luqmani, “but I suspect the numbers are too small to tell.”

Mr. Dernie, Dr. Luqmani, and the other coauthors had no disclosures.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.