News

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

The first study funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for psychedelic-assisted therapy since the 1960s is currently enrolling veterans. Researchers are set to evaluate the potential of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder.   
 

The grant—about $1.5 million over 5 years—will fund a randomized, placebo-controlled trial at the Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island and the West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut by VA researchers affiliated with Brown University and Yale University. Pharmaceutical-grade MDMA will be used, and some participants will be randomly selected to receive an active placebo (lower dose of MDMA). MDMA is a psychedelic compound believed to increase emotional openness, reduce fear, and promote introspection during therapy. 
 

The study is part of the VA’s broader effort to gather definitive scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds used in conjunction with psychotherapy to treat PTSD, depression, and related mental health conditions. Veterans service organizations like the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans in addition to mental health clinician groups have also called for expanded research into psychedelic compounds. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 also authorized the US Department of Defense to perform research on psychedelics within military populations. 
 

In September 2023, VA and other federal clinicians, scientists, and policy makers assessed the state of scientific evidence regarding psychedelic-assisted therapies. The working groups provided advice to VA leadership, including the recommendation for the VA to begin funding its own research into these areas of care.  
 

The guidance was based on previously published studies that have found encouraging results but included few or no veteran participants. For example, a confirmatory phase 3 study by the MAPP2 Study Collaborator Group involved 104 patients, of whom only 16 were veterans.  
 

However, the findings of that study underscored the potential of the treatment: MDMA significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo with therapy over 18 weeks. Notably, 45 of 52 (86%) participants treated with MDMA achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 of 52 (71%) participants no longer met criteria for PTSD by the end of the study. Consistent with an earlier study, no new major safety issues were reported. Common treatment-emergent adverse effects were like those of previous research and consistent with expected effects of MDMA. MDMA did not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation, and no suicidal behavior was observed. 
 

The VA researchers has conducted a limited number of small studies on psychedelics in VA facilities using non-VA funding. “VA is on the cutting edge of clinical research for veteran health, including in the investigation of psychedelics for mental health,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD.  
 

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA in the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin for the treatment of depression in 2017 and 2018, respectively, based on promising preliminary research evidence. However, in June 2024 an FDA panel voted against approving a MDMA therapy for PTSD, citing concerns about research practices, a lack of diversity in the trials, and a failure to provide data on adverse effects such as potential for abuse.  
 

In August, the FDA formally rejected the treatment and called for another phase 3 study. “The FDA’s decision is disgraceful,” said Heroic Hearts Project, a veterans organization that had lobbied for FDA approval citing the many veteran suicides in a statement. “This is the epitome of bureaucratic red tape—and the result is people will keep dying.” 
 

Meanwhile, VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement: “VA is committed to high-quality research that safely promotes the health of our nation’s Veterans … VA anticipates that additional insights on the efficacy and safety of these therapies will add to the broader body of knowledge on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.”

The first study funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for psychedelic-assisted therapy since the 1960s is currently enrolling veterans. Researchers are set to evaluate the potential of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder.   
 

The grant—about $1.5 million over 5 years—will fund a randomized, placebo-controlled trial at the Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island and the West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut by VA researchers affiliated with Brown University and Yale University. Pharmaceutical-grade MDMA will be used, and some participants will be randomly selected to receive an active placebo (lower dose of MDMA). MDMA is a psychedelic compound believed to increase emotional openness, reduce fear, and promote introspection during therapy. 
 

The study is part of the VA’s broader effort to gather definitive scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds used in conjunction with psychotherapy to treat PTSD, depression, and related mental health conditions. Veterans service organizations like the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans in addition to mental health clinician groups have also called for expanded research into psychedelic compounds. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 also authorized the US Department of Defense to perform research on psychedelics within military populations. 
 

In September 2023, VA and other federal clinicians, scientists, and policy makers assessed the state of scientific evidence regarding psychedelic-assisted therapies. The working groups provided advice to VA leadership, including the recommendation for the VA to begin funding its own research into these areas of care.  
 

The guidance was based on previously published studies that have found encouraging results but included few or no veteran participants. For example, a confirmatory phase 3 study by the MAPP2 Study Collaborator Group involved 104 patients, of whom only 16 were veterans.  
 

However, the findings of that study underscored the potential of the treatment: MDMA significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo with therapy over 18 weeks. Notably, 45 of 52 (86%) participants treated with MDMA achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 of 52 (71%) participants no longer met criteria for PTSD by the end of the study. Consistent with an earlier study, no new major safety issues were reported. Common treatment-emergent adverse effects were like those of previous research and consistent with expected effects of MDMA. MDMA did not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation, and no suicidal behavior was observed. 
 

The VA researchers has conducted a limited number of small studies on psychedelics in VA facilities using non-VA funding. “VA is on the cutting edge of clinical research for veteran health, including in the investigation of psychedelics for mental health,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD.  
 

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA in the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin for the treatment of depression in 2017 and 2018, respectively, based on promising preliminary research evidence. However, in June 2024 an FDA panel voted against approving a MDMA therapy for PTSD, citing concerns about research practices, a lack of diversity in the trials, and a failure to provide data on adverse effects such as potential for abuse.  
 

In August, the FDA formally rejected the treatment and called for another phase 3 study. “The FDA’s decision is disgraceful,” said Heroic Hearts Project, a veterans organization that had lobbied for FDA approval citing the many veteran suicides in a statement. “This is the epitome of bureaucratic red tape—and the result is people will keep dying.” 
 

Meanwhile, VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement: “VA is committed to high-quality research that safely promotes the health of our nation’s Veterans … VA anticipates that additional insights on the efficacy and safety of these therapies will add to the broader body of knowledge on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.”

The first study funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for psychedelic-assisted therapy since the 1960s is currently enrolling veterans. Researchers are set to evaluate the potential of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder.   
 

The grant—about $1.5 million over 5 years—will fund a randomized, placebo-controlled trial at the Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island and the West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut by VA researchers affiliated with Brown University and Yale University. Pharmaceutical-grade MDMA will be used, and some participants will be randomly selected to receive an active placebo (lower dose of MDMA). MDMA is a psychedelic compound believed to increase emotional openness, reduce fear, and promote introspection during therapy. 
 

The study is part of the VA’s broader effort to gather definitive scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds used in conjunction with psychotherapy to treat PTSD, depression, and related mental health conditions. Veterans service organizations like the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans in addition to mental health clinician groups have also called for expanded research into psychedelic compounds. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 also authorized the US Department of Defense to perform research on psychedelics within military populations. 
 

In September 2023, VA and other federal clinicians, scientists, and policy makers assessed the state of scientific evidence regarding psychedelic-assisted therapies. The working groups provided advice to VA leadership, including the recommendation for the VA to begin funding its own research into these areas of care.  
 

The guidance was based on previously published studies that have found encouraging results but included few or no veteran participants. For example, a confirmatory phase 3 study by the MAPP2 Study Collaborator Group involved 104 patients, of whom only 16 were veterans.  
 

However, the findings of that study underscored the potential of the treatment: MDMA significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo with therapy over 18 weeks. Notably, 45 of 52 (86%) participants treated with MDMA achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 of 52 (71%) participants no longer met criteria for PTSD by the end of the study. Consistent with an earlier study, no new major safety issues were reported. Common treatment-emergent adverse effects were like those of previous research and consistent with expected effects of MDMA. MDMA did not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation, and no suicidal behavior was observed. 
 

The VA researchers has conducted a limited number of small studies on psychedelics in VA facilities using non-VA funding. “VA is on the cutting edge of clinical research for veteran health, including in the investigation of psychedelics for mental health,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD.  
 

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA in the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin for the treatment of depression in 2017 and 2018, respectively, based on promising preliminary research evidence. However, in June 2024 an FDA panel voted against approving a MDMA therapy for PTSD, citing concerns about research practices, a lack of diversity in the trials, and a failure to provide data on adverse effects such as potential for abuse.  
 

In August, the FDA formally rejected the treatment and called for another phase 3 study. “The FDA’s decision is disgraceful,” said Heroic Hearts Project, a veterans organization that had lobbied for FDA approval citing the many veteran suicides in a statement. “This is the epitome of bureaucratic red tape—and the result is people will keep dying.” 
 

Meanwhile, VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement: “VA is committed to high-quality research that safely promotes the health of our nation’s Veterans … VA anticipates that additional insights on the efficacy and safety of these therapies will add to the broader body of knowledge on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.”

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists reveals hypertrophic or traumatic scars, acne, and hyperhidrosis as the top pediatric cosmetic concerns, and vascular lasers, laser hair removal, and lasers for pigmentation among the most common treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• An anonymous online survey conducted with SurveyMonkey targeted healthcare providers who routinely used lasers to treat cutaneous conditions in pediatric patients.
• The survey included members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery and Surgery, as well as fellowship directors and current fellows of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
• A total of 85 practitioners responded to the survey, with 86% answering all questions; respondents primarily included pediatric dermatologists (77.65%), general dermatologists (18.82%), cosmetic dermatologists (8.24%), and dermatologic/Mohs surgeons (1.18%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Hypertrophic or traumatic scars ranked as the most frequently treated pediatric cosmetic condition (95.29%), followed by acne (89.41%), axillary and facial hyperhidrosis (77.65%), hypertrichosis/hirsutism (67.06%), and pigmented lesion removal (64.71%).
• The most common procedures performed were vascular lasers (77.65%), laser hair removal (50.59%), lasers for pigmentation (28.24%), neuromodulators (25.88%), and laser skin resurfacing (22.35%).
• Additional treatments respondents performed included chemical peels (20.00%), radiofrequency microneedling (16.47%), soft tissue fillers (4.71%), and cryolipolysis/body contouring (4.17%).
• About 50% of respondents said they would start cosmetic treatment of acne, and about 66% said they would start laser hair removal treatment between the ages of 12 and 15 years.

IN PRACTICE:

Noting that the survey results provided insight into the types of cosmetic procedures being performed for pediatric patients, the authors wrote, “These interventions can play a significant role in addressing the emotional and social challenges faced by pediatric patients with cosmetic concerns, allowing them to navigate social interactions more confidently and positively.” Before any procedure, they added, “It is important that any comorbid conditions be addressed,” they added, and “ethical considerations regarding informed consent, patient autonomy, and long-term consequences should be carefully weighed, given the vulnerable nature of pediatric patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lauren Hoffman, MD, who practices dermatology in Great Neck, New York. It was published online in December 2024 in Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was subjective in nature and had a small sample size, and the exact number of survey recipients was unclear, hindering an accurate calculation of the response rate. The absolute number of responses accounted for a small portion of the total memberships of the participating societies. Also, the data collection periods varied among the three academic societies, and dermatologists’ practice types may have influenced the range and nature of treated conditions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose funding information. They declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists reveals hypertrophic or traumatic scars, acne, and hyperhidrosis as the top pediatric cosmetic concerns, and vascular lasers, laser hair removal, and lasers for pigmentation among the most common treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• An anonymous online survey conducted with SurveyMonkey targeted healthcare providers who routinely used lasers to treat cutaneous conditions in pediatric patients.
• The survey included members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery and Surgery, as well as fellowship directors and current fellows of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
• A total of 85 practitioners responded to the survey, with 86% answering all questions; respondents primarily included pediatric dermatologists (77.65%), general dermatologists (18.82%), cosmetic dermatologists (8.24%), and dermatologic/Mohs surgeons (1.18%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Hypertrophic or traumatic scars ranked as the most frequently treated pediatric cosmetic condition (95.29%), followed by acne (89.41%), axillary and facial hyperhidrosis (77.65%), hypertrichosis/hirsutism (67.06%), and pigmented lesion removal (64.71%).
• The most common procedures performed were vascular lasers (77.65%), laser hair removal (50.59%), lasers for pigmentation (28.24%), neuromodulators (25.88%), and laser skin resurfacing (22.35%).
• Additional treatments respondents performed included chemical peels (20.00%), radiofrequency microneedling (16.47%), soft tissue fillers (4.71%), and cryolipolysis/body contouring (4.17%).
• About 50% of respondents said they would start cosmetic treatment of acne, and about 66% said they would start laser hair removal treatment between the ages of 12 and 15 years.

IN PRACTICE:

Noting that the survey results provided insight into the types of cosmetic procedures being performed for pediatric patients, the authors wrote, “These interventions can play a significant role in addressing the emotional and social challenges faced by pediatric patients with cosmetic concerns, allowing them to navigate social interactions more confidently and positively.” Before any procedure, they added, “It is important that any comorbid conditions be addressed,” they added, and “ethical considerations regarding informed consent, patient autonomy, and long-term consequences should be carefully weighed, given the vulnerable nature of pediatric patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lauren Hoffman, MD, who practices dermatology in Great Neck, New York. It was published online in December 2024 in Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was subjective in nature and had a small sample size, and the exact number of survey recipients was unclear, hindering an accurate calculation of the response rate. The absolute number of responses accounted for a small portion of the total memberships of the participating societies. Also, the data collection periods varied among the three academic societies, and dermatologists’ practice types may have influenced the range and nature of treated conditions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose funding information. They declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists reveals hypertrophic or traumatic scars, acne, and hyperhidrosis as the top pediatric cosmetic concerns, and vascular lasers, laser hair removal, and lasers for pigmentation among the most common treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• An anonymous online survey conducted with SurveyMonkey targeted healthcare providers who routinely used lasers to treat cutaneous conditions in pediatric patients.
• The survey included members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery and Surgery, as well as fellowship directors and current fellows of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
• A total of 85 practitioners responded to the survey, with 86% answering all questions; respondents primarily included pediatric dermatologists (77.65%), general dermatologists (18.82%), cosmetic dermatologists (8.24%), and dermatologic/Mohs surgeons (1.18%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Hypertrophic or traumatic scars ranked as the most frequently treated pediatric cosmetic condition (95.29%), followed by acne (89.41%), axillary and facial hyperhidrosis (77.65%), hypertrichosis/hirsutism (67.06%), and pigmented lesion removal (64.71%).
• The most common procedures performed were vascular lasers (77.65%), laser hair removal (50.59%), lasers for pigmentation (28.24%), neuromodulators (25.88%), and laser skin resurfacing (22.35%).
• Additional treatments respondents performed included chemical peels (20.00%), radiofrequency microneedling (16.47%), soft tissue fillers (4.71%), and cryolipolysis/body contouring (4.17%).
• About 50% of respondents said they would start cosmetic treatment of acne, and about 66% said they would start laser hair removal treatment between the ages of 12 and 15 years.

IN PRACTICE:

Noting that the survey results provided insight into the types of cosmetic procedures being performed for pediatric patients, the authors wrote, “These interventions can play a significant role in addressing the emotional and social challenges faced by pediatric patients with cosmetic concerns, allowing them to navigate social interactions more confidently and positively.” Before any procedure, they added, “It is important that any comorbid conditions be addressed,” they added, and “ethical considerations regarding informed consent, patient autonomy, and long-term consequences should be carefully weighed, given the vulnerable nature of pediatric patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lauren Hoffman, MD, who practices dermatology in Great Neck, New York. It was published online in December 2024 in Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was subjective in nature and had a small sample size, and the exact number of survey recipients was unclear, hindering an accurate calculation of the response rate. The absolute number of responses accounted for a small portion of the total memberships of the participating societies. Also, the data collection periods varied among the three academic societies, and dermatologists’ practice types may have influenced the range and nature of treated conditions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose funding information. They declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

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

SAN DIEGO — In patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypertension, and cirrhosis, certain antihypertensive medications may lead to increased risks for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to new research.

In particular, the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a higher risk of developing HCC, compared with not using these medications.

About half of patients with MASLD have hypertension, and the use of antihypertensives in these patients is beneficial to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and complications related to MASLD, said lead author Ahmed Elhariri, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who conducted the study as a research assistant in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, also in Houston.

However, previous studies have suggested a possible link between these medications and cancer development, “especially CCBs and breast and lung cancer,” said Elhariri, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

 

Analyzing Potential Risks

In a case-control study, Elhariri and colleagues analyzed antihypertensive medication use among patients with MASLD-induced HCC, as defined by histology or radiology based on the Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System, and control patients with MASLD but without HCC.

Between 2020 and 2024, the research team recruited 153 newly diagnosed HCC cases with different etiologies and 170 patients with MASLD but without HCC from Baylor College of Medicine’s outpatient clinics. For this study, they selected 47 age- and sex-matched pairs, all of whom had cirrhosis. Only those with a history of hypertension were included, however. Data on risk factors of metabolic syndrome (including diabetes) and HCC were collected, along with details about medication use such as metformin and statins.

A total of 42 patients with MASLD and HCC and 39 MASLD control individuals had a history of hypertension and were treated with antihypertensive medications. The mean age was 66.5 years for the HCC group and 63.5 years for the control group, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.1 for the HCC group and 31.7 for the control group.

After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, Hispanic ethnicity, and use of other medications, patients taking CCBs had an increased HCC risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.76), compared with those not taking CCBs. Patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs also had an increased HCC risk (OR, 2.54), compared with those not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

However, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in HCC risk among patients taking beta-blockers (OR, 0.87).

“Patients with fatty liver in the presence of metabolic syndrome, especially in the presence of cirrhosis and antihypertensives, need to have stricter surveillance for liver cancer,” Elhariri said.

“We need to carefully review blood pressure medications in patients with MASLD and cirrhosis,” he said. CCBs, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs can be replaced with beta-blockers, “which have been shown to reduce progression of cirrhosis-related complications.”

 

Considering Clinical Implications

“Although our study showed some association between the use of some commonly used antihypertensives and the risk for HCC in this high-risk population, it is based on data collected retrospectively on a small number of selected patients with advanced liver disease,” Elhariri noted.

The associations and underlying mechanisms should be studied in larger populations and prospective trials, he said. “Until we have more data with a significantly larger sample size, it’s premature to raise the concern in the general population.”

“The cardiovascular benefits of controlling blood pressure far outweigh the risk of liver cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome,” Elhariri added.

In ongoing studies, researchers are investigating ways to improve patient outcomes and reduce the negative effects of cirrhosis-associated complications among patients with MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), Muhammad Ali Butt, MD, a hepatology fellow at Beth Israel Lahey Hospital & Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

Butt, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented separate research on statins in MASH patients with cirrhosis, which indicated statistically significant decreases in portal hypertension, thrombosis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality.

“We know patients with MASLD- and MASH-associated cirrhosis commonly have other comorbidities, including high cardiovascular risks, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia,” he said. “All of these conditions indicate patients to be on other medications such as antihypertensives or statins. It’s important to know the role these medications play, especially given the high-risk profile of these patients.”

Elhariri and Butt reported no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — In patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypertension, and cirrhosis, certain antihypertensive medications may lead to increased risks for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to new research.

In particular, the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a higher risk of developing HCC, compared with not using these medications.

About half of patients with MASLD have hypertension, and the use of antihypertensives in these patients is beneficial to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and complications related to MASLD, said lead author Ahmed Elhariri, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who conducted the study as a research assistant in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, also in Houston.

However, previous studies have suggested a possible link between these medications and cancer development, “especially CCBs and breast and lung cancer,” said Elhariri, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

 

Analyzing Potential Risks

In a case-control study, Elhariri and colleagues analyzed antihypertensive medication use among patients with MASLD-induced HCC, as defined by histology or radiology based on the Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System, and control patients with MASLD but without HCC.

Between 2020 and 2024, the research team recruited 153 newly diagnosed HCC cases with different etiologies and 170 patients with MASLD but without HCC from Baylor College of Medicine’s outpatient clinics. For this study, they selected 47 age- and sex-matched pairs, all of whom had cirrhosis. Only those with a history of hypertension were included, however. Data on risk factors of metabolic syndrome (including diabetes) and HCC were collected, along with details about medication use such as metformin and statins.

A total of 42 patients with MASLD and HCC and 39 MASLD control individuals had a history of hypertension and were treated with antihypertensive medications. The mean age was 66.5 years for the HCC group and 63.5 years for the control group, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.1 for the HCC group and 31.7 for the control group.

After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, Hispanic ethnicity, and use of other medications, patients taking CCBs had an increased HCC risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.76), compared with those not taking CCBs. Patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs also had an increased HCC risk (OR, 2.54), compared with those not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

However, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in HCC risk among patients taking beta-blockers (OR, 0.87).

“Patients with fatty liver in the presence of metabolic syndrome, especially in the presence of cirrhosis and antihypertensives, need to have stricter surveillance for liver cancer,” Elhariri said.

“We need to carefully review blood pressure medications in patients with MASLD and cirrhosis,” he said. CCBs, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs can be replaced with beta-blockers, “which have been shown to reduce progression of cirrhosis-related complications.”

 

Considering Clinical Implications

“Although our study showed some association between the use of some commonly used antihypertensives and the risk for HCC in this high-risk population, it is based on data collected retrospectively on a small number of selected patients with advanced liver disease,” Elhariri noted.

The associations and underlying mechanisms should be studied in larger populations and prospective trials, he said. “Until we have more data with a significantly larger sample size, it’s premature to raise the concern in the general population.”

“The cardiovascular benefits of controlling blood pressure far outweigh the risk of liver cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome,” Elhariri added.

In ongoing studies, researchers are investigating ways to improve patient outcomes and reduce the negative effects of cirrhosis-associated complications among patients with MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), Muhammad Ali Butt, MD, a hepatology fellow at Beth Israel Lahey Hospital & Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

Butt, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented separate research on statins in MASH patients with cirrhosis, which indicated statistically significant decreases in portal hypertension, thrombosis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality.

“We know patients with MASLD- and MASH-associated cirrhosis commonly have other comorbidities, including high cardiovascular risks, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia,” he said. “All of these conditions indicate patients to be on other medications such as antihypertensives or statins. It’s important to know the role these medications play, especially given the high-risk profile of these patients.”

Elhariri and Butt reported no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — In patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypertension, and cirrhosis, certain antihypertensive medications may lead to increased risks for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to new research.

In particular, the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a higher risk of developing HCC, compared with not using these medications.

About half of patients with MASLD have hypertension, and the use of antihypertensives in these patients is beneficial to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and complications related to MASLD, said lead author Ahmed Elhariri, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who conducted the study as a research assistant in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, also in Houston.

However, previous studies have suggested a possible link between these medications and cancer development, “especially CCBs and breast and lung cancer,” said Elhariri, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

 

Analyzing Potential Risks

In a case-control study, Elhariri and colleagues analyzed antihypertensive medication use among patients with MASLD-induced HCC, as defined by histology or radiology based on the Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System, and control patients with MASLD but without HCC.

Between 2020 and 2024, the research team recruited 153 newly diagnosed HCC cases with different etiologies and 170 patients with MASLD but without HCC from Baylor College of Medicine’s outpatient clinics. For this study, they selected 47 age- and sex-matched pairs, all of whom had cirrhosis. Only those with a history of hypertension were included, however. Data on risk factors of metabolic syndrome (including diabetes) and HCC were collected, along with details about medication use such as metformin and statins.

A total of 42 patients with MASLD and HCC and 39 MASLD control individuals had a history of hypertension and were treated with antihypertensive medications. The mean age was 66.5 years for the HCC group and 63.5 years for the control group, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.1 for the HCC group and 31.7 for the control group.

After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, Hispanic ethnicity, and use of other medications, patients taking CCBs had an increased HCC risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.76), compared with those not taking CCBs. Patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs also had an increased HCC risk (OR, 2.54), compared with those not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

However, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in HCC risk among patients taking beta-blockers (OR, 0.87).

“Patients with fatty liver in the presence of metabolic syndrome, especially in the presence of cirrhosis and antihypertensives, need to have stricter surveillance for liver cancer,” Elhariri said.

“We need to carefully review blood pressure medications in patients with MASLD and cirrhosis,” he said. CCBs, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs can be replaced with beta-blockers, “which have been shown to reduce progression of cirrhosis-related complications.”

 

Considering Clinical Implications

“Although our study showed some association between the use of some commonly used antihypertensives and the risk for HCC in this high-risk population, it is based on data collected retrospectively on a small number of selected patients with advanced liver disease,” Elhariri noted.

The associations and underlying mechanisms should be studied in larger populations and prospective trials, he said. “Until we have more data with a significantly larger sample size, it’s premature to raise the concern in the general population.”

“The cardiovascular benefits of controlling blood pressure far outweigh the risk of liver cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome,” Elhariri added.

In ongoing studies, researchers are investigating ways to improve patient outcomes and reduce the negative effects of cirrhosis-associated complications among patients with MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), Muhammad Ali Butt, MD, a hepatology fellow at Beth Israel Lahey Hospital & Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

Butt, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented separate research on statins in MASH patients with cirrhosis, which indicated statistically significant decreases in portal hypertension, thrombosis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality.

“We know patients with MASLD- and MASH-associated cirrhosis commonly have other comorbidities, including high cardiovascular risks, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia,” he said. “All of these conditions indicate patients to be on other medications such as antihypertensives or statins. It’s important to know the role these medications play, especially given the high-risk profile of these patients.”

Elhariri and Butt reported no relevant disclosures.

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

NEW YORK CITY — Instructions on wound healing often involve disturbing photographs of severe diabetic ulcers, angry autoimmune blistering, and oozing lesions produced by uncommon genetic disorders, but whether or not they are dramatic, day-to-day dermatologic wound care relies on both the basics as well as novel approaches, according to a well-known wound treatment expert.

Wound repair is relevant to any specialty involved in invasive interventions, but dermatologists are at ground zero and should have commensurate skills, suggested Robert S. Kirsner, MD, PhD, director of the Wound Clinic at Jackson Memorial Hospital and chair of the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, Florida.

“We as a specialty make and repair more wounds than any other specialty,” said Kirsner, who provided data to make his point. In a table he showed, the number of wound repairs made annually by dermatologists was several-fold higher than surgeons, the next highest group, and the numbers declined rapidly from there. 

Speaking at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024, Kirsner offered an array of clinical pearls, reinforced some basics, and pointed to well-supported strategies he believes are too often overlooked.

Drugs Repurposed for Wound Healing

Of the clinical pearls, he spoke of the repurposing of several agents for wound care. His first example was the monoclonal antibody dupilumab, which inhibits interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling, to heal selected patients with leg ulcers. The potential of this drug for wound healing was based on a patient with a leg ulcer who presented with concomitant prurigo nodularis and biliary cirrhosis. When offered for the comorbidities, dupilumab provided a “dramatic” benefit with regard to the wound, according to Kirsner. 

The explanation for the response is that IL-4 and IL-13 have been found to be upregulated in some patients with leg ulcers. Based on numerous cases, Kirsner spoke of a phenotype of nonhealing leg ulcers from which elevated IL-4 and IL-13 can be isolated; these are the candidates for adding dupilumab to wound care, he said.

Topical beta-blockade is another example of a therapy repurposed for wound healing, according to Kirsner. He said beta-blockers are already a standard of care for burn wounds, but the mechanism is relevant in other wound types.

Several studies have looked at this phenomenon, with experimental studies showing that skin healing is impaired when beta-2 receptors are agonized but accelerated when blocked. 

 

Beta-Blockade Accelerates Wound Healing 

A recent review of these mechanisms in soft-tissue wound healing pointed to an anti-inflammatory effect, acceleration of keratinocyte migration, pro-reepithelization effects, and inhibition of bacterial virulence. Beta-blockers were first implicated as mediators of wound healing more than a decade ago, but Kirsner indicated that there is now more attention to this therapy within a comprehensive approach in difficult cases.

Although not specific to wound healing, the potential for teprotumumab to improve control of pretibial myxedema is another example of a repurposed therapy for a challenging skin disease. Teprotumumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptor, is approved for active thyroid eye disease, but Kirsner cited data showing compelling evidence of benefit in this cutaneous complication of Graves disease.

As for basics, Kirsner devoted some time to emphasizing the importance of compression therapy for improving leg vascularization. This is not something to just consider; rather, he thinks it is part of standard practice. “Compress all leg ulcers,” was Kirsner’s simple message.

Citing encouraging work in identifying targetable molecular events in wound healing, Kirsner suggested that treatment might be increasingly guided by biomarkers. He pointed to ongoing work to characterize wound exudate as a source of biomarkers.

“The discarded dressing contains a wealth of information,” he said, referring to cell types and proteins, such as growth factors. He thinks that the ongoing studies of exudate, which have shown that molecular processes detected at the periphery are often different than those at the focal site of injury, have substantial promise for identifying new treatment targets.

 

Virtual Reality to Address Pain

From a practical standpoint, Kirsner looked to a well-studied but still underused adjunct to wound debridement and surgical repair: the distraction offered by relatively low-priced virtual reality systems. He described it as a simple way to help patients keep their minds off the pain. It is not a new idea and has been studied for this use numerous times, and the evidence of benefit is essentially uniform, according to Kirsner.

He said effective and sophisticated systems can now be purchased for just hundreds of dollars, and no training is needed. Indeed, he said pediatric patients can typically explain how the system works if the clinician does not know.

“If you can enhance their experience [during wound repair], you can make their lives and your life better,” he said. 

Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, concurred that the evidence supports this approach and is easy to do. “I am in favor of anything that improves the experience of the patient,” said Zeichner, who chaired the portion of the meeting during which Kirsner spoke. 

Kirsner said he practices what he preaches. “I routinely employ virtual reality for simple surgical procedures or processes that patients might find unpleasant,” he said. He acknowledged that clinicians might have heard this message before, but he believes those who have not yet introduced this into their practice should consider it.

Kirsner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Zeichner has reported serving as a consultant for Beiersdorf. 

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

NEW YORK CITY — Instructions on wound healing often involve disturbing photographs of severe diabetic ulcers, angry autoimmune blistering, and oozing lesions produced by uncommon genetic disorders, but whether or not they are dramatic, day-to-day dermatologic wound care relies on both the basics as well as novel approaches, according to a well-known wound treatment expert.

Wound repair is relevant to any specialty involved in invasive interventions, but dermatologists are at ground zero and should have commensurate skills, suggested Robert S. Kirsner, MD, PhD, director of the Wound Clinic at Jackson Memorial Hospital and chair of the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, Florida.

“We as a specialty make and repair more wounds than any other specialty,” said Kirsner, who provided data to make his point. In a table he showed, the number of wound repairs made annually by dermatologists was several-fold higher than surgeons, the next highest group, and the numbers declined rapidly from there. 

Speaking at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024, Kirsner offered an array of clinical pearls, reinforced some basics, and pointed to well-supported strategies he believes are too often overlooked.

Drugs Repurposed for Wound Healing

Of the clinical pearls, he spoke of the repurposing of several agents for wound care. His first example was the monoclonal antibody dupilumab, which inhibits interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling, to heal selected patients with leg ulcers. The potential of this drug for wound healing was based on a patient with a leg ulcer who presented with concomitant prurigo nodularis and biliary cirrhosis. When offered for the comorbidities, dupilumab provided a “dramatic” benefit with regard to the wound, according to Kirsner. 

The explanation for the response is that IL-4 and IL-13 have been found to be upregulated in some patients with leg ulcers. Based on numerous cases, Kirsner spoke of a phenotype of nonhealing leg ulcers from which elevated IL-4 and IL-13 can be isolated; these are the candidates for adding dupilumab to wound care, he said.

Topical beta-blockade is another example of a therapy repurposed for wound healing, according to Kirsner. He said beta-blockers are already a standard of care for burn wounds, but the mechanism is relevant in other wound types.

Several studies have looked at this phenomenon, with experimental studies showing that skin healing is impaired when beta-2 receptors are agonized but accelerated when blocked. 

 

Beta-Blockade Accelerates Wound Healing 

A recent review of these mechanisms in soft-tissue wound healing pointed to an anti-inflammatory effect, acceleration of keratinocyte migration, pro-reepithelization effects, and inhibition of bacterial virulence. Beta-blockers were first implicated as mediators of wound healing more than a decade ago, but Kirsner indicated that there is now more attention to this therapy within a comprehensive approach in difficult cases.

Although not specific to wound healing, the potential for teprotumumab to improve control of pretibial myxedema is another example of a repurposed therapy for a challenging skin disease. Teprotumumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptor, is approved for active thyroid eye disease, but Kirsner cited data showing compelling evidence of benefit in this cutaneous complication of Graves disease.

As for basics, Kirsner devoted some time to emphasizing the importance of compression therapy for improving leg vascularization. This is not something to just consider; rather, he thinks it is part of standard practice. “Compress all leg ulcers,” was Kirsner’s simple message.

Citing encouraging work in identifying targetable molecular events in wound healing, Kirsner suggested that treatment might be increasingly guided by biomarkers. He pointed to ongoing work to characterize wound exudate as a source of biomarkers.

“The discarded dressing contains a wealth of information,” he said, referring to cell types and proteins, such as growth factors. He thinks that the ongoing studies of exudate, which have shown that molecular processes detected at the periphery are often different than those at the focal site of injury, have substantial promise for identifying new treatment targets.

 

Virtual Reality to Address Pain

From a practical standpoint, Kirsner looked to a well-studied but still underused adjunct to wound debridement and surgical repair: the distraction offered by relatively low-priced virtual reality systems. He described it as a simple way to help patients keep their minds off the pain. It is not a new idea and has been studied for this use numerous times, and the evidence of benefit is essentially uniform, according to Kirsner.

He said effective and sophisticated systems can now be purchased for just hundreds of dollars, and no training is needed. Indeed, he said pediatric patients can typically explain how the system works if the clinician does not know.

“If you can enhance their experience [during wound repair], you can make their lives and your life better,” he said. 

Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, concurred that the evidence supports this approach and is easy to do. “I am in favor of anything that improves the experience of the patient,” said Zeichner, who chaired the portion of the meeting during which Kirsner spoke. 

Kirsner said he practices what he preaches. “I routinely employ virtual reality for simple surgical procedures or processes that patients might find unpleasant,” he said. He acknowledged that clinicians might have heard this message before, but he believes those who have not yet introduced this into their practice should consider it.

Kirsner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Zeichner has reported serving as a consultant for Beiersdorf. 

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

NEW YORK CITY — Instructions on wound healing often involve disturbing photographs of severe diabetic ulcers, angry autoimmune blistering, and oozing lesions produced by uncommon genetic disorders, but whether or not they are dramatic, day-to-day dermatologic wound care relies on both the basics as well as novel approaches, according to a well-known wound treatment expert.

Wound repair is relevant to any specialty involved in invasive interventions, but dermatologists are at ground zero and should have commensurate skills, suggested Robert S. Kirsner, MD, PhD, director of the Wound Clinic at Jackson Memorial Hospital and chair of the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, Florida.

“We as a specialty make and repair more wounds than any other specialty,” said Kirsner, who provided data to make his point. In a table he showed, the number of wound repairs made annually by dermatologists was several-fold higher than surgeons, the next highest group, and the numbers declined rapidly from there. 

Speaking at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024, Kirsner offered an array of clinical pearls, reinforced some basics, and pointed to well-supported strategies he believes are too often overlooked.

Drugs Repurposed for Wound Healing

Of the clinical pearls, he spoke of the repurposing of several agents for wound care. His first example was the monoclonal antibody dupilumab, which inhibits interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling, to heal selected patients with leg ulcers. The potential of this drug for wound healing was based on a patient with a leg ulcer who presented with concomitant prurigo nodularis and biliary cirrhosis. When offered for the comorbidities, dupilumab provided a “dramatic” benefit with regard to the wound, according to Kirsner. 

The explanation for the response is that IL-4 and IL-13 have been found to be upregulated in some patients with leg ulcers. Based on numerous cases, Kirsner spoke of a phenotype of nonhealing leg ulcers from which elevated IL-4 and IL-13 can be isolated; these are the candidates for adding dupilumab to wound care, he said.

Topical beta-blockade is another example of a therapy repurposed for wound healing, according to Kirsner. He said beta-blockers are already a standard of care for burn wounds, but the mechanism is relevant in other wound types.

Several studies have looked at this phenomenon, with experimental studies showing that skin healing is impaired when beta-2 receptors are agonized but accelerated when blocked. 

 

Beta-Blockade Accelerates Wound Healing 

A recent review of these mechanisms in soft-tissue wound healing pointed to an anti-inflammatory effect, acceleration of keratinocyte migration, pro-reepithelization effects, and inhibition of bacterial virulence. Beta-blockers were first implicated as mediators of wound healing more than a decade ago, but Kirsner indicated that there is now more attention to this therapy within a comprehensive approach in difficult cases.

Although not specific to wound healing, the potential for teprotumumab to improve control of pretibial myxedema is another example of a repurposed therapy for a challenging skin disease. Teprotumumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptor, is approved for active thyroid eye disease, but Kirsner cited data showing compelling evidence of benefit in this cutaneous complication of Graves disease.

As for basics, Kirsner devoted some time to emphasizing the importance of compression therapy for improving leg vascularization. This is not something to just consider; rather, he thinks it is part of standard practice. “Compress all leg ulcers,” was Kirsner’s simple message.

Citing encouraging work in identifying targetable molecular events in wound healing, Kirsner suggested that treatment might be increasingly guided by biomarkers. He pointed to ongoing work to characterize wound exudate as a source of biomarkers.

“The discarded dressing contains a wealth of information,” he said, referring to cell types and proteins, such as growth factors. He thinks that the ongoing studies of exudate, which have shown that molecular processes detected at the periphery are often different than those at the focal site of injury, have substantial promise for identifying new treatment targets.

 

Virtual Reality to Address Pain

From a practical standpoint, Kirsner looked to a well-studied but still underused adjunct to wound debridement and surgical repair: the distraction offered by relatively low-priced virtual reality systems. He described it as a simple way to help patients keep their minds off the pain. It is not a new idea and has been studied for this use numerous times, and the evidence of benefit is essentially uniform, according to Kirsner.

He said effective and sophisticated systems can now be purchased for just hundreds of dollars, and no training is needed. Indeed, he said pediatric patients can typically explain how the system works if the clinician does not know.

“If you can enhance their experience [during wound repair], you can make their lives and your life better,” he said. 

Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, concurred that the evidence supports this approach and is easy to do. “I am in favor of anything that improves the experience of the patient,” said Zeichner, who chaired the portion of the meeting during which Kirsner spoke. 

Kirsner said he practices what he preaches. “I routinely employ virtual reality for simple surgical procedures or processes that patients might find unpleasant,” he said. He acknowledged that clinicians might have heard this message before, but he believes those who have not yet introduced this into their practice should consider it.

Kirsner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Zeichner has reported serving as a consultant for Beiersdorf. 

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

TOPLINE:

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and fenofibrates are associated with a reduced risk for diabetic macular edema (DME) in patients with type 2 diabetes, while calcium channel blockers appear to increase the risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic medical records from the TriNetX health research network to evaluate how systemic medications, such as GLP-1 RAs, fenofibrates, thiazolidinediones, and calcium channel blockers, influence the risk of developing DME in patients with type 2 diabetes.
• They included patients with a 5-year history of type 2 diabetes and an absence of DME at baseline.
• The treatment group included patients who initiated treatment with calcium channel blockers (n = 107,193), GLP-1 RAs (n = 76,583), thiazolidinediones (n = 25,657), or fenofibrates (n = 18,606) after a diagnosis of diabetes. The control group received none of these medications within 1 year of being diagnosed with the condition.
• The researchers used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics and comorbidities between both groups.
• The primary outcome was the incidence of diagnoses of DME within a 2-year follow-up period after the initiation of systemic medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients treated with calcium channel blockers showed an increased risk for incident DME (hazard ratio [HR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.54-1.78) compared with control individuals.
• Treatment with GLP-1 RAs was associated with a reduced risk for DME (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85), as was treatment with fenofibrates (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98).
• No significant difference in risk for DME was observed between patients taking thiazolidinediones and control individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found a possible protective effect for GLP-1 RA medications and fenofibrate for DME and an adverse effect for calcium channel blockers with regard to the development of DME in patients” with type 2 diabetes, the authors wrote.

“Our preliminary data suggests a protective effect with regard to GLP-1 RA drugs and the development of DME. Clinical studies examining a potential therapeutic effect of GLP-1 RA drugs on DME do seem warranted. A single orally administered drug could conceivably lower blood sugar, reduce weight, offer cardiovascular protection, and treat DME” in patients with type 2 diabetes, they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jawad Muayad, BS, of the School of Medicine at Texas A&M University, in Houston. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology Retina.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature. It relied on electronic medical records for the diagnosis of DME instead of directly assessing retinal images or measuring retinal thickness. Moreover, patients on certain medications may have been monitored more closely, potentially influencing the likelihood of a diagnosis of DME being recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from various institutions and pharmaceutical companies. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and fenofibrates are associated with a reduced risk for diabetic macular edema (DME) in patients with type 2 diabetes, while calcium channel blockers appear to increase the risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic medical records from the TriNetX health research network to evaluate how systemic medications, such as GLP-1 RAs, fenofibrates, thiazolidinediones, and calcium channel blockers, influence the risk of developing DME in patients with type 2 diabetes.
• They included patients with a 5-year history of type 2 diabetes and an absence of DME at baseline.
• The treatment group included patients who initiated treatment with calcium channel blockers (n = 107,193), GLP-1 RAs (n = 76,583), thiazolidinediones (n = 25,657), or fenofibrates (n = 18,606) after a diagnosis of diabetes. The control group received none of these medications within 1 year of being diagnosed with the condition.
• The researchers used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics and comorbidities between both groups.
• The primary outcome was the incidence of diagnoses of DME within a 2-year follow-up period after the initiation of systemic medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients treated with calcium channel blockers showed an increased risk for incident DME (hazard ratio [HR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.54-1.78) compared with control individuals.
• Treatment with GLP-1 RAs was associated with a reduced risk for DME (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85), as was treatment with fenofibrates (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98).
• No significant difference in risk for DME was observed between patients taking thiazolidinediones and control individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found a possible protective effect for GLP-1 RA medications and fenofibrate for DME and an adverse effect for calcium channel blockers with regard to the development of DME in patients” with type 2 diabetes, the authors wrote.

“Our preliminary data suggests a protective effect with regard to GLP-1 RA drugs and the development of DME. Clinical studies examining a potential therapeutic effect of GLP-1 RA drugs on DME do seem warranted. A single orally administered drug could conceivably lower blood sugar, reduce weight, offer cardiovascular protection, and treat DME” in patients with type 2 diabetes, they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jawad Muayad, BS, of the School of Medicine at Texas A&M University, in Houston. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology Retina.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature. It relied on electronic medical records for the diagnosis of DME instead of directly assessing retinal images or measuring retinal thickness. Moreover, patients on certain medications may have been monitored more closely, potentially influencing the likelihood of a diagnosis of DME being recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from various institutions and pharmaceutical companies. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and fenofibrates are associated with a reduced risk for diabetic macular edema (DME) in patients with type 2 diabetes, while calcium channel blockers appear to increase the risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic medical records from the TriNetX health research network to evaluate how systemic medications, such as GLP-1 RAs, fenofibrates, thiazolidinediones, and calcium channel blockers, influence the risk of developing DME in patients with type 2 diabetes.
• They included patients with a 5-year history of type 2 diabetes and an absence of DME at baseline.
• The treatment group included patients who initiated treatment with calcium channel blockers (n = 107,193), GLP-1 RAs (n = 76,583), thiazolidinediones (n = 25,657), or fenofibrates (n = 18,606) after a diagnosis of diabetes. The control group received none of these medications within 1 year of being diagnosed with the condition.
• The researchers used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics and comorbidities between both groups.
• The primary outcome was the incidence of diagnoses of DME within a 2-year follow-up period after the initiation of systemic medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients treated with calcium channel blockers showed an increased risk for incident DME (hazard ratio [HR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.54-1.78) compared with control individuals.
• Treatment with GLP-1 RAs was associated with a reduced risk for DME (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85), as was treatment with fenofibrates (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98).
• No significant difference in risk for DME was observed between patients taking thiazolidinediones and control individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found a possible protective effect for GLP-1 RA medications and fenofibrate for DME and an adverse effect for calcium channel blockers with regard to the development of DME in patients” with type 2 diabetes, the authors wrote.

“Our preliminary data suggests a protective effect with regard to GLP-1 RA drugs and the development of DME. Clinical studies examining a potential therapeutic effect of GLP-1 RA drugs on DME do seem warranted. A single orally administered drug could conceivably lower blood sugar, reduce weight, offer cardiovascular protection, and treat DME” in patients with type 2 diabetes, they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jawad Muayad, BS, of the School of Medicine at Texas A&M University, in Houston. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology Retina.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature. It relied on electronic medical records for the diagnosis of DME instead of directly assessing retinal images or measuring retinal thickness. Moreover, patients on certain medications may have been monitored more closely, potentially influencing the likelihood of a diagnosis of DME being recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from various institutions and pharmaceutical companies. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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