Dermatology News

BOSTON – When patients present with complaints of hair loss or changes in hair color or texture, make sure to ask if they are taking oral hair growth supplements.

This is an important question because patients consider supplements as “natural and healthy,” not as drugs or chemicals, Wilma F. Bergfeld, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Some of these products contain botanicals, which are not always safe, added Dr. Bergfeld, professor of dermatology and pathology at the Cleveland Clinic. “They have many activities, and they are being touted as having some activity in helping the hair or enhancing hair growth,” including having 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors as an ingredient. “Saw palmetto is probably the most common one, but there are a host of natural ingredients that are being put into these supplements, including those that promote androgen induction, as well as antioxidants and anti-inflammatories.”

In the opinion of Dr. Bergfeld, a nutrition-focused physical assessment should include an examination of the scalp and all hairy areas. “It’s also important to see the symmetry and shape of hair growth or hair loss areas, the distribution, hair color, the thickness and texture of the hair fibers,” she added.

Besides asking about what supplements patients are taking, other questions to ask during the visit include: Are you noticing more hair on your brush, pillow, and shoulders, or in the shower? Do you think your hair is thinning? What are your medical problems? Have you experienced rapid weight loss? Have you started any new medications? What medication(s) are you on? What foods do you eat? Do you have a family history of hair loss?

Possible causes of hair loss or changes include environmental factors, stress, hormonal changes, medications, and nutrition.

Common ingredients contained in healthy hair supplements include biotin, folic acid, L-cysteine, L-methionine, MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), vitamin B complex, and vitamins A, C, D, and E. “Vitamin D and A are associated on the hair follicle receptor sites, and they balance each other, so if one is down the other is usually down,” said Dr. Bergfeld, who directs Cleveland Clinic’s hair disorders clinic and its dermatopathology program. Other important ingredients include iron, zinc, manganese, amino acids including L-Lysine, and fatty acids.

Iron deficiency is a known cause of hair loss. “The absorption of iron relies on vitamin C and sometimes lysine,” she said. Red meat has a high iron content and since many patients are restricting red meat intake, “they do need to think about that.” Zinc deficiency is less common in Western countries, she continued, “but when you find it, it’s revolutionary because if they’re shedding hair and their hair character is changing, often some supplementation will do the trick. But remember: Zinc is not only an anti-inflammatory, it’s also an antiandrogen. It has 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor capabilities.”.

Dr. Bergfeld noted that biotin, also known as vitamin B₇ and found in many foods, is used in many vitamin supplements marketed for hair loss. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 30 mcg/day in adults but the amount in hair supplements can be up to 650% of RDA. “Biotin at high levels is believed to be safe, but can interfere with troponin and other lab testing,” she cautioned. “This can lead to dangerous false laboratory results.”

To date, insufficient data exist to recommend supplementation with zinc, riboflavin, folic acid, or vitamin B₁₂ for hair loss, “but they may help in cases of deficiency,” said Dr. Bergfeld, a past president of the American Hair Research Society. The use of vitamin E and biotin supplementation is not supported in the literature for treating androgenetic alopecia or telogen effluvium. Excessive vitamin A (not beta carotene) and selenium can contribute to hair loss and studies have shown a relationship between androgenetic alopecia and low vitamin D levels. “Vitamin D should be supplemented if serum levels are low, but more studies are needed to determine the effect of iron and zinc supplementation” in patients with androgenetic alopecia, she said.

While there are not enough data to support a recommendation for supplementation of folic or B₁₂ for alopecia, she said, “vitamin B₁₂ deficiency may occur in androgenetic alopecia patients, associated with pernicious anemia.”

She added that the use biotin supplementation for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia is not supported by available data, and “it is also unclear if selenium plays a role in this disease.”

Dr. Bergfeld reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – When patients present with complaints of hair loss or changes in hair color or texture, make sure to ask if they are taking oral hair growth supplements.

This is an important question because patients consider supplements as “natural and healthy,” not as drugs or chemicals, Wilma F. Bergfeld, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Some of these products contain botanicals, which are not always safe, added Dr. Bergfeld, professor of dermatology and pathology at the Cleveland Clinic. “They have many activities, and they are being touted as having some activity in helping the hair or enhancing hair growth,” including having 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors as an ingredient. “Saw palmetto is probably the most common one, but there are a host of natural ingredients that are being put into these supplements, including those that promote androgen induction, as well as antioxidants and anti-inflammatories.”

In the opinion of Dr. Bergfeld, a nutrition-focused physical assessment should include an examination of the scalp and all hairy areas. “It’s also important to see the symmetry and shape of hair growth or hair loss areas, the distribution, hair color, the thickness and texture of the hair fibers,” she added.

Besides asking about what supplements patients are taking, other questions to ask during the visit include: Are you noticing more hair on your brush, pillow, and shoulders, or in the shower? Do you think your hair is thinning? What are your medical problems? Have you experienced rapid weight loss? Have you started any new medications? What medication(s) are you on? What foods do you eat? Do you have a family history of hair loss?

Possible causes of hair loss or changes include environmental factors, stress, hormonal changes, medications, and nutrition.

Common ingredients contained in healthy hair supplements include biotin, folic acid, L-cysteine, L-methionine, MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), vitamin B complex, and vitamins A, C, D, and E. “Vitamin D and A are associated on the hair follicle receptor sites, and they balance each other, so if one is down the other is usually down,” said Dr. Bergfeld, who directs Cleveland Clinic’s hair disorders clinic and its dermatopathology program. Other important ingredients include iron, zinc, manganese, amino acids including L-Lysine, and fatty acids.

Iron deficiency is a known cause of hair loss. “The absorption of iron relies on vitamin C and sometimes lysine,” she said. Red meat has a high iron content and since many patients are restricting red meat intake, “they do need to think about that.” Zinc deficiency is less common in Western countries, she continued, “but when you find it, it’s revolutionary because if they’re shedding hair and their hair character is changing, often some supplementation will do the trick. But remember: Zinc is not only an anti-inflammatory, it’s also an antiandrogen. It has 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor capabilities.”.

Dr. Bergfeld noted that biotin, also known as vitamin B₇ and found in many foods, is used in many vitamin supplements marketed for hair loss. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 30 mcg/day in adults but the amount in hair supplements can be up to 650% of RDA. “Biotin at high levels is believed to be safe, but can interfere with troponin and other lab testing,” she cautioned. “This can lead to dangerous false laboratory results.”

To date, insufficient data exist to recommend supplementation with zinc, riboflavin, folic acid, or vitamin B₁₂ for hair loss, “but they may help in cases of deficiency,” said Dr. Bergfeld, a past president of the American Hair Research Society. The use of vitamin E and biotin supplementation is not supported in the literature for treating androgenetic alopecia or telogen effluvium. Excessive vitamin A (not beta carotene) and selenium can contribute to hair loss and studies have shown a relationship between androgenetic alopecia and low vitamin D levels. “Vitamin D should be supplemented if serum levels are low, but more studies are needed to determine the effect of iron and zinc supplementation” in patients with androgenetic alopecia, she said.

While there are not enough data to support a recommendation for supplementation of folic or B₁₂ for alopecia, she said, “vitamin B₁₂ deficiency may occur in androgenetic alopecia patients, associated with pernicious anemia.”

She added that the use biotin supplementation for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia is not supported by available data, and “it is also unclear if selenium plays a role in this disease.”

Dr. Bergfeld reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – When patients present with complaints of hair loss or changes in hair color or texture, make sure to ask if they are taking oral hair growth supplements.

This is an important question because patients consider supplements as “natural and healthy,” not as drugs or chemicals, Wilma F. Bergfeld, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Some of these products contain botanicals, which are not always safe, added Dr. Bergfeld, professor of dermatology and pathology at the Cleveland Clinic. “They have many activities, and they are being touted as having some activity in helping the hair or enhancing hair growth,” including having 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors as an ingredient. “Saw palmetto is probably the most common one, but there are a host of natural ingredients that are being put into these supplements, including those that promote androgen induction, as well as antioxidants and anti-inflammatories.”

In the opinion of Dr. Bergfeld, a nutrition-focused physical assessment should include an examination of the scalp and all hairy areas. “It’s also important to see the symmetry and shape of hair growth or hair loss areas, the distribution, hair color, the thickness and texture of the hair fibers,” she added.

Besides asking about what supplements patients are taking, other questions to ask during the visit include: Are you noticing more hair on your brush, pillow, and shoulders, or in the shower? Do you think your hair is thinning? What are your medical problems? Have you experienced rapid weight loss? Have you started any new medications? What medication(s) are you on? What foods do you eat? Do you have a family history of hair loss?

Possible causes of hair loss or changes include environmental factors, stress, hormonal changes, medications, and nutrition.

Common ingredients contained in healthy hair supplements include biotin, folic acid, L-cysteine, L-methionine, MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), vitamin B complex, and vitamins A, C, D, and E. “Vitamin D and A are associated on the hair follicle receptor sites, and they balance each other, so if one is down the other is usually down,” said Dr. Bergfeld, who directs Cleveland Clinic’s hair disorders clinic and its dermatopathology program. Other important ingredients include iron, zinc, manganese, amino acids including L-Lysine, and fatty acids.

Iron deficiency is a known cause of hair loss. “The absorption of iron relies on vitamin C and sometimes lysine,” she said. Red meat has a high iron content and since many patients are restricting red meat intake, “they do need to think about that.” Zinc deficiency is less common in Western countries, she continued, “but when you find it, it’s revolutionary because if they’re shedding hair and their hair character is changing, often some supplementation will do the trick. But remember: Zinc is not only an anti-inflammatory, it’s also an antiandrogen. It has 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor capabilities.”.

Dr. Bergfeld noted that biotin, also known as vitamin B₇ and found in many foods, is used in many vitamin supplements marketed for hair loss. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 30 mcg/day in adults but the amount in hair supplements can be up to 650% of RDA. “Biotin at high levels is believed to be safe, but can interfere with troponin and other lab testing,” she cautioned. “This can lead to dangerous false laboratory results.”

To date, insufficient data exist to recommend supplementation with zinc, riboflavin, folic acid, or vitamin B₁₂ for hair loss, “but they may help in cases of deficiency,” said Dr. Bergfeld, a past president of the American Hair Research Society. The use of vitamin E and biotin supplementation is not supported in the literature for treating androgenetic alopecia or telogen effluvium. Excessive vitamin A (not beta carotene) and selenium can contribute to hair loss and studies have shown a relationship between androgenetic alopecia and low vitamin D levels. “Vitamin D should be supplemented if serum levels are low, but more studies are needed to determine the effect of iron and zinc supplementation” in patients with androgenetic alopecia, she said.

While there are not enough data to support a recommendation for supplementation of folic or B₁₂ for alopecia, she said, “vitamin B₁₂ deficiency may occur in androgenetic alopecia patients, associated with pernicious anemia.”

She added that the use biotin supplementation for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia is not supported by available data, and “it is also unclear if selenium plays a role in this disease.”

Dr. Bergfeld reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Bullous pemphigoid, an immune-mediated condition characterized by large, fluid-filled blisters on the skin, is a rare but serious complication of cancer therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that may result in treatment interruption or cessation.

Investigators in Boston report that among patients receiving ICIs, being aged 70 years or older and having skin cancer are both significant risk factors for bullous pemphigoid. On the plus side, ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid also appears to be a marker for improved tumor responses to therapy.

In a nested case-control study of 5,636 patients with cancer who received either a programmed death 1 inhibitor such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or nivolumab (Opdivo) or a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 inhibitor such as ipilimumab (Yervoy), 35 patients (0.6%) developed bullous pemphigoid. The study by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and colleagues was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“What is interesting is that 0.6 is a small number, but we’re seeing bullous pemphigoid at considerably higher frequency than is expected in the general population,” Dr. LeBoeuf said in an interview.

And although bullous pemphigoid has the potential to disrupt ICI therapy, it also appears to be a marker for a favorable tumor response, the investigators found.

Their findings suggest that management of bullous pemphigoid for patients receiving ICIs should focus on early identification and management with therapies directed at the specific toxicity, Dr. LeBoeuf said.

“When you make a specific diagnosis like bullous pemphigoid, then you can treat that specific disease with very targeted therapies, such as omalizumab or dupilumab or rituximab – things that are not globally immune suppressing like steroid or other T-cell–depleting agents. Studies have shown that depleting B cells with anti-CD20 agents is not detrimental to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” she said.
 

Dermatologic AEs common

About 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events (AEs) that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they wrote in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Dr. LeBoeuf and colleagues note that, while reported risk factors for idiopathic bullous pemphigoid include advanced age, type 2 diabetes, use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, cerebrovascular disease, and neurocognitive disease, risk factors for bullous pemphigoid and other adverse dermatologic events associated with ICIs are less well known.
 

Study details

To identify risk factors for bullous pemphigoid in patients receiving ICI, the investigators performed a case-control study nested within a retrospective cohort study.

They evaluated records for all patients in the three Harvard-affiliated hospitals to identify patients with ICI-associated bullous pemphigoid from October 2014 through December 2020. Control persons were all patients in the Dana-Farber cancer registry who received ICIs during the study period.

The investigators chose age at ICI initiation (69 years and younger or 70 years and older), sex, ICI agents, and cancer type as potential risk factors.

They used propensity score matching based on age, cancer type, ICI agent, and number of ICI cycles to match two control persons with each case patient.

Of the 5,636 patients treated with ICIs during the study period, 35 (0.6%) developed bullous pemphigoid. The median age was 72.8 years, and 71.4% were men.

In a multivariate logistic regression model that included 2,955 patients with complete data in the cancer registry, factors significantly associated with developing bullous pemphigoid included age 70 years or older (odds ratio, 2.32; P = .01), having melanoma (OR, 3.21; P < .001), and having nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR, 8.32; P < .001).

In comparing the 35 case patients with their matched control patients, a complete or partial response at first restaging imaging was significantly associated with developing bullous pemphigoid (OR, 3.37; P = .01). In addition, there was a higher likelihood of tumor responses to ICIs among patients with bullous pemphigoid, compared with matched control patients (objective response rate, 82.9% vs. 61.4%; P = .03).
 

Prudent toxicity management

Ryan Sullivan, MD, who treats patients with skin cancer at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, but was not involved in the study, commented that the findings raise questions about the relationship between skin cancers and immune-related adverse events.

“It is compelling that bullous pemphigoid is a skin toxicity and is more common to happen in skin cancer patients,” he noted. “That’s a very interesting finding, and the reason that it’s interesting is that it’s harder to understand why a presumably antibody-mediated side effect would be more likely to have that cross-reactivity where the tumor started and where the toxicity happened,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the benefits of ICIs for patients with skin cancers far outweigh the risks of dermatologic adverse events such as bullous pemphigoid and that ICI-associated events require judicious management.

“This is true across the spectrum of toxicities: There are clear manifestations of toxicity that we should be more thoughtful about what’s driving them, more thoughtful about what it is, and more thoughtful about treating them, other than just pouring steroids into patients in industrial doses and hoping that everything’s going to be OK,” he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. LeBoeuf reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees for serving as a consultant for several companies outside the study. Coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, is associate editor of JAMA Dermatology but was not involved in study selection or evaluation for publication. Dr. Sullivan disclosed consulting for ICI makers Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck.

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

Bullous pemphigoid, an immune-mediated condition characterized by large, fluid-filled blisters on the skin, is a rare but serious complication of cancer therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that may result in treatment interruption or cessation.

Investigators in Boston report that among patients receiving ICIs, being aged 70 years or older and having skin cancer are both significant risk factors for bullous pemphigoid. On the plus side, ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid also appears to be a marker for improved tumor responses to therapy.

In a nested case-control study of 5,636 patients with cancer who received either a programmed death 1 inhibitor such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or nivolumab (Opdivo) or a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 inhibitor such as ipilimumab (Yervoy), 35 patients (0.6%) developed bullous pemphigoid. The study by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and colleagues was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“What is interesting is that 0.6 is a small number, but we’re seeing bullous pemphigoid at considerably higher frequency than is expected in the general population,” Dr. LeBoeuf said in an interview.

And although bullous pemphigoid has the potential to disrupt ICI therapy, it also appears to be a marker for a favorable tumor response, the investigators found.

Their findings suggest that management of bullous pemphigoid for patients receiving ICIs should focus on early identification and management with therapies directed at the specific toxicity, Dr. LeBoeuf said.

“When you make a specific diagnosis like bullous pemphigoid, then you can treat that specific disease with very targeted therapies, such as omalizumab or dupilumab or rituximab – things that are not globally immune suppressing like steroid or other T-cell–depleting agents. Studies have shown that depleting B cells with anti-CD20 agents is not detrimental to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” she said.
 

Dermatologic AEs common

About 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events (AEs) that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they wrote in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Dr. LeBoeuf and colleagues note that, while reported risk factors for idiopathic bullous pemphigoid include advanced age, type 2 diabetes, use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, cerebrovascular disease, and neurocognitive disease, risk factors for bullous pemphigoid and other adverse dermatologic events associated with ICIs are less well known.
 

Study details

To identify risk factors for bullous pemphigoid in patients receiving ICI, the investigators performed a case-control study nested within a retrospective cohort study.

They evaluated records for all patients in the three Harvard-affiliated hospitals to identify patients with ICI-associated bullous pemphigoid from October 2014 through December 2020. Control persons were all patients in the Dana-Farber cancer registry who received ICIs during the study period.

The investigators chose age at ICI initiation (69 years and younger or 70 years and older), sex, ICI agents, and cancer type as potential risk factors.

They used propensity score matching based on age, cancer type, ICI agent, and number of ICI cycles to match two control persons with each case patient.

Of the 5,636 patients treated with ICIs during the study period, 35 (0.6%) developed bullous pemphigoid. The median age was 72.8 years, and 71.4% were men.

In a multivariate logistic regression model that included 2,955 patients with complete data in the cancer registry, factors significantly associated with developing bullous pemphigoid included age 70 years or older (odds ratio, 2.32; P = .01), having melanoma (OR, 3.21; P < .001), and having nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR, 8.32; P < .001).

In comparing the 35 case patients with their matched control patients, a complete or partial response at first restaging imaging was significantly associated with developing bullous pemphigoid (OR, 3.37; P = .01). In addition, there was a higher likelihood of tumor responses to ICIs among patients with bullous pemphigoid, compared with matched control patients (objective response rate, 82.9% vs. 61.4%; P = .03).
 

Prudent toxicity management

Ryan Sullivan, MD, who treats patients with skin cancer at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, but was not involved in the study, commented that the findings raise questions about the relationship between skin cancers and immune-related adverse events.

“It is compelling that bullous pemphigoid is a skin toxicity and is more common to happen in skin cancer patients,” he noted. “That’s a very interesting finding, and the reason that it’s interesting is that it’s harder to understand why a presumably antibody-mediated side effect would be more likely to have that cross-reactivity where the tumor started and where the toxicity happened,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the benefits of ICIs for patients with skin cancers far outweigh the risks of dermatologic adverse events such as bullous pemphigoid and that ICI-associated events require judicious management.

“This is true across the spectrum of toxicities: There are clear manifestations of toxicity that we should be more thoughtful about what’s driving them, more thoughtful about what it is, and more thoughtful about treating them, other than just pouring steroids into patients in industrial doses and hoping that everything’s going to be OK,” he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. LeBoeuf reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees for serving as a consultant for several companies outside the study. Coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, is associate editor of JAMA Dermatology but was not involved in study selection or evaluation for publication. Dr. Sullivan disclosed consulting for ICI makers Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck.

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

Bullous pemphigoid, an immune-mediated condition characterized by large, fluid-filled blisters on the skin, is a rare but serious complication of cancer therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that may result in treatment interruption or cessation.

Investigators in Boston report that among patients receiving ICIs, being aged 70 years or older and having skin cancer are both significant risk factors for bullous pemphigoid. On the plus side, ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid also appears to be a marker for improved tumor responses to therapy.

In a nested case-control study of 5,636 patients with cancer who received either a programmed death 1 inhibitor such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or nivolumab (Opdivo) or a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 inhibitor such as ipilimumab (Yervoy), 35 patients (0.6%) developed bullous pemphigoid. The study by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and colleagues was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“What is interesting is that 0.6 is a small number, but we’re seeing bullous pemphigoid at considerably higher frequency than is expected in the general population,” Dr. LeBoeuf said in an interview.

And although bullous pemphigoid has the potential to disrupt ICI therapy, it also appears to be a marker for a favorable tumor response, the investigators found.

Their findings suggest that management of bullous pemphigoid for patients receiving ICIs should focus on early identification and management with therapies directed at the specific toxicity, Dr. LeBoeuf said.

“When you make a specific diagnosis like bullous pemphigoid, then you can treat that specific disease with very targeted therapies, such as omalizumab or dupilumab or rituximab – things that are not globally immune suppressing like steroid or other T-cell–depleting agents. Studies have shown that depleting B cells with anti-CD20 agents is not detrimental to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” she said.
 

Dermatologic AEs common

About 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events (AEs) that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they wrote in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Dr. LeBoeuf and colleagues note that, while reported risk factors for idiopathic bullous pemphigoid include advanced age, type 2 diabetes, use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, cerebrovascular disease, and neurocognitive disease, risk factors for bullous pemphigoid and other adverse dermatologic events associated with ICIs are less well known.
 

Study details

To identify risk factors for bullous pemphigoid in patients receiving ICI, the investigators performed a case-control study nested within a retrospective cohort study.

They evaluated records for all patients in the three Harvard-affiliated hospitals to identify patients with ICI-associated bullous pemphigoid from October 2014 through December 2020. Control persons were all patients in the Dana-Farber cancer registry who received ICIs during the study period.

The investigators chose age at ICI initiation (69 years and younger or 70 years and older), sex, ICI agents, and cancer type as potential risk factors.

They used propensity score matching based on age, cancer type, ICI agent, and number of ICI cycles to match two control persons with each case patient.

Of the 5,636 patients treated with ICIs during the study period, 35 (0.6%) developed bullous pemphigoid. The median age was 72.8 years, and 71.4% were men.

In a multivariate logistic regression model that included 2,955 patients with complete data in the cancer registry, factors significantly associated with developing bullous pemphigoid included age 70 years or older (odds ratio, 2.32; P = .01), having melanoma (OR, 3.21; P < .001), and having nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR, 8.32; P < .001).

In comparing the 35 case patients with their matched control patients, a complete or partial response at first restaging imaging was significantly associated with developing bullous pemphigoid (OR, 3.37; P = .01). In addition, there was a higher likelihood of tumor responses to ICIs among patients with bullous pemphigoid, compared with matched control patients (objective response rate, 82.9% vs. 61.4%; P = .03).
 

Prudent toxicity management

Ryan Sullivan, MD, who treats patients with skin cancer at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, but was not involved in the study, commented that the findings raise questions about the relationship between skin cancers and immune-related adverse events.

“It is compelling that bullous pemphigoid is a skin toxicity and is more common to happen in skin cancer patients,” he noted. “That’s a very interesting finding, and the reason that it’s interesting is that it’s harder to understand why a presumably antibody-mediated side effect would be more likely to have that cross-reactivity where the tumor started and where the toxicity happened,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the benefits of ICIs for patients with skin cancers far outweigh the risks of dermatologic adverse events such as bullous pemphigoid and that ICI-associated events require judicious management.

“This is true across the spectrum of toxicities: There are clear manifestations of toxicity that we should be more thoughtful about what’s driving them, more thoughtful about what it is, and more thoughtful about treating them, other than just pouring steroids into patients in industrial doses and hoping that everything’s going to be OK,” he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. LeBoeuf reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees for serving as a consultant for several companies outside the study. Coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, is associate editor of JAMA Dermatology but was not involved in study selection or evaluation for publication. Dr. Sullivan disclosed consulting for ICI makers Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck.

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

Did you hear the one about the TV host suggesting men get their testicles tanned?

The nutty idea dropped into the lexicon last weekend thanks to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.

He aired a promo for a show about an alleged decline of manhood. It featured shirtless, muscled men doing macho things like shooting automatic rifles and wrestling, and a naked man rather triumphantly exposing his crotch to a red-light device made to look like some sort of charging station.

Mr. Carlson then interviewed a “fitness professional,” and both enthused about the idea of exposing male genitalia to red light to raise testosterone levels.

The guest also said he’s heard of something he called “bromeopathy” for people who are suspicious of “mainstream” information. Yes, it’s a combination of the slang term “bro” and the practice of homeopathic medicine.

So, men of America, do you really need to start zapping your privates like Mr. Carlson seems to suggest?

Doctors say the answer is simple: Absolutely not.
 

‘No legitimate evidence’

“There is no legitimate evidence that this type of treatment is effective in improving testosterone levels,” says Petar Bajic MD, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in men’s health and testosterone.

The red light wouldn’t even be able to penetrate the body deep enough to reach the, uhm, targets, he said, citing “no scientific basis” for Mr. Tucker’s claims that we should be “open minded” about this kind of thing.

“It’s not only a waste of time but also a waste of money,” Dr. Bajic says. “There is a large amount of research and high-quality studies” into treating low testosterone, which is produced primarily in the testicles. “We have very effective and proven treatments available, and this is simply not one of them.”

Testosterone is an important hormone that contributes to masculine physical characteristics, “such as muscle mass and strength, and growth of facial and body hair,” according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s important for bone density, sperm production, erectile function, and more.

As men age, testosterone levels often drop, lowering energy and sexual function while causing weight gain and muscle loss.

If men experience some of these symptoms or become curious about their testosterone levels, they shouldn’t self-diagnose or rely on two guys promoting a TV show, Dr. Bajic says.

Instead, they should see their primary care doctor for a simple blood test, he says. Patient and doctor can decide on treatments, which commonly include:

• Topical gels
• Arm patches
• Injections into the muscle of the leg or the fatty tissue of the belly
• Pellets placed under the skin

Diet, exercise, sleep, and other factors play a role.
 

‘So much misinformation’

The men’s health consumer market is bloated with products promising to raise testosterone levels and help men boost their bedroom performance, among other claims.

But they’re usually based on nothing more than marketing, and erectile disfunction is more commonly caused by reduced blood flow than a lack of testosterone, Dr. Bajic says.

“It all comes down to looking at all of these as a consumer and as a patient ... with a critical eye. There’s always a new ‘cure all’ for whatever your ailment is,” he says.

Testosterone levels change throughout the day. It’s thought to be produced during REM sleep, which can be diminished by alcohol use and other factors.

“All these things are related,” Dr. Bajic said, so there’s no reason to flash a light where it’s usually not seen – especially since neither the safety nor efficacy of testicle tanning has been established.

Oregon urologist Ashley Winter, MD, got into the Twitter fray about Carlson’s comments.

“Also, by definition you CANNOT have data on testicle tanning because you cannot TAN an internal organ,” she said on the social media network. “Tanning your scrotal sack and calling it ‘testicle tanning,’ is like tanning your abdominal skin and calling it ‘liver tanning.’”
 

What advocates say

What do proponents of red light therapy say? A Men’s Health article claims red light “works to stimulate ATP production, increase energy available to the cell and in particular, increase the activity of the Leydig cells in your testes, which are the cells responsible for testosterone production.”

The article also helpfully points out: “It’s important to note that there are currently no light therapy devices on the market cleared by FDA for the enhanced production of testosterone LED-based therapy.” And many lamps sold for red light therapy can get so hot that they damage the skin.

The author ordered a Joovv device, which Mr. Carlson’s “fitness professional” guest name-dropped. They range from $600 to almost $10,000. He liked the way it felt and said it seemed to improve his sexual performance.
 

Still a hard sell

Atlanta dermatologist Emily de Golian, MD, says tanning genitalia can be dangerous to the skin.

“There is no such thing as a safe tan, all tanning is indicative of sun damage in the skin and is the body’s effort to shield the DNA from further damage, and tanning increases the risk of skin cancer,” she says. “Scrotal skin is particularly delicate and sensitive to sun exposure, and the risk of sunburn, which further increases the risk of skin cancer, is high.”

Mat Rezaei, founder and CEO of UPGUYS, which provides erectile disfunction medicine, says, “UV light has no negative or positive response to balancing testosterone deficiency.”

Even frequent Fox guest Kid Rock wasn’t buying into the idea.

“Dude, stop! Testicle tanning? Come on,” Mr. Rock said to Mr. Carlson. “I mean, I haven’t heard anything that good in a long time.”

“Open your mind,” said Mr. Carlson as he laughed along with the musician.

Kid Rock replied, “I’m starting a punk rock band and it’s called Testicle Tanning. That’s the end of it.”

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

Did you hear the one about the TV host suggesting men get their testicles tanned?

The nutty idea dropped into the lexicon last weekend thanks to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.

He aired a promo for a show about an alleged decline of manhood. It featured shirtless, muscled men doing macho things like shooting automatic rifles and wrestling, and a naked man rather triumphantly exposing his crotch to a red-light device made to look like some sort of charging station.

Mr. Carlson then interviewed a “fitness professional,” and both enthused about the idea of exposing male genitalia to red light to raise testosterone levels.

The guest also said he’s heard of something he called “bromeopathy” for people who are suspicious of “mainstream” information. Yes, it’s a combination of the slang term “bro” and the practice of homeopathic medicine.

So, men of America, do you really need to start zapping your privates like Mr. Carlson seems to suggest?

Doctors say the answer is simple: Absolutely not.
 

‘No legitimate evidence’

“There is no legitimate evidence that this type of treatment is effective in improving testosterone levels,” says Petar Bajic MD, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in men’s health and testosterone.

The red light wouldn’t even be able to penetrate the body deep enough to reach the, uhm, targets, he said, citing “no scientific basis” for Mr. Tucker’s claims that we should be “open minded” about this kind of thing.

“It’s not only a waste of time but also a waste of money,” Dr. Bajic says. “There is a large amount of research and high-quality studies” into treating low testosterone, which is produced primarily in the testicles. “We have very effective and proven treatments available, and this is simply not one of them.”

Testosterone is an important hormone that contributes to masculine physical characteristics, “such as muscle mass and strength, and growth of facial and body hair,” according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s important for bone density, sperm production, erectile function, and more.

As men age, testosterone levels often drop, lowering energy and sexual function while causing weight gain and muscle loss.

If men experience some of these symptoms or become curious about their testosterone levels, they shouldn’t self-diagnose or rely on two guys promoting a TV show, Dr. Bajic says.

Instead, they should see their primary care doctor for a simple blood test, he says. Patient and doctor can decide on treatments, which commonly include:

• Topical gels
• Arm patches
• Injections into the muscle of the leg or the fatty tissue of the belly
• Pellets placed under the skin

Diet, exercise, sleep, and other factors play a role.
 

‘So much misinformation’

The men’s health consumer market is bloated with products promising to raise testosterone levels and help men boost their bedroom performance, among other claims.

But they’re usually based on nothing more than marketing, and erectile disfunction is more commonly caused by reduced blood flow than a lack of testosterone, Dr. Bajic says.

“It all comes down to looking at all of these as a consumer and as a patient ... with a critical eye. There’s always a new ‘cure all’ for whatever your ailment is,” he says.

Testosterone levels change throughout the day. It’s thought to be produced during REM sleep, which can be diminished by alcohol use and other factors.

“All these things are related,” Dr. Bajic said, so there’s no reason to flash a light where it’s usually not seen – especially since neither the safety nor efficacy of testicle tanning has been established.

Oregon urologist Ashley Winter, MD, got into the Twitter fray about Carlson’s comments.

“Also, by definition you CANNOT have data on testicle tanning because you cannot TAN an internal organ,” she said on the social media network. “Tanning your scrotal sack and calling it ‘testicle tanning,’ is like tanning your abdominal skin and calling it ‘liver tanning.’”
 

What advocates say

What do proponents of red light therapy say? A Men’s Health article claims red light “works to stimulate ATP production, increase energy available to the cell and in particular, increase the activity of the Leydig cells in your testes, which are the cells responsible for testosterone production.”

The article also helpfully points out: “It’s important to note that there are currently no light therapy devices on the market cleared by FDA for the enhanced production of testosterone LED-based therapy.” And many lamps sold for red light therapy can get so hot that they damage the skin.

The author ordered a Joovv device, which Mr. Carlson’s “fitness professional” guest name-dropped. They range from $600 to almost $10,000. He liked the way it felt and said it seemed to improve his sexual performance.
 

Still a hard sell

Atlanta dermatologist Emily de Golian, MD, says tanning genitalia can be dangerous to the skin.

“There is no such thing as a safe tan, all tanning is indicative of sun damage in the skin and is the body’s effort to shield the DNA from further damage, and tanning increases the risk of skin cancer,” she says. “Scrotal skin is particularly delicate and sensitive to sun exposure, and the risk of sunburn, which further increases the risk of skin cancer, is high.”

Mat Rezaei, founder and CEO of UPGUYS, which provides erectile disfunction medicine, says, “UV light has no negative or positive response to balancing testosterone deficiency.”

Even frequent Fox guest Kid Rock wasn’t buying into the idea.

“Dude, stop! Testicle tanning? Come on,” Mr. Rock said to Mr. Carlson. “I mean, I haven’t heard anything that good in a long time.”

“Open your mind,” said Mr. Carlson as he laughed along with the musician.

Kid Rock replied, “I’m starting a punk rock band and it’s called Testicle Tanning. That’s the end of it.”

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

Did you hear the one about the TV host suggesting men get their testicles tanned?

The nutty idea dropped into the lexicon last weekend thanks to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.

He aired a promo for a show about an alleged decline of manhood. It featured shirtless, muscled men doing macho things like shooting automatic rifles and wrestling, and a naked man rather triumphantly exposing his crotch to a red-light device made to look like some sort of charging station.

Mr. Carlson then interviewed a “fitness professional,” and both enthused about the idea of exposing male genitalia to red light to raise testosterone levels.

The guest also said he’s heard of something he called “bromeopathy” for people who are suspicious of “mainstream” information. Yes, it’s a combination of the slang term “bro” and the practice of homeopathic medicine.

So, men of America, do you really need to start zapping your privates like Mr. Carlson seems to suggest?

Doctors say the answer is simple: Absolutely not.
 

‘No legitimate evidence’

“There is no legitimate evidence that this type of treatment is effective in improving testosterone levels,” says Petar Bajic MD, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in men’s health and testosterone.

The red light wouldn’t even be able to penetrate the body deep enough to reach the, uhm, targets, he said, citing “no scientific basis” for Mr. Tucker’s claims that we should be “open minded” about this kind of thing.

“It’s not only a waste of time but also a waste of money,” Dr. Bajic says. “There is a large amount of research and high-quality studies” into treating low testosterone, which is produced primarily in the testicles. “We have very effective and proven treatments available, and this is simply not one of them.”

Testosterone is an important hormone that contributes to masculine physical characteristics, “such as muscle mass and strength, and growth of facial and body hair,” according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s important for bone density, sperm production, erectile function, and more.

As men age, testosterone levels often drop, lowering energy and sexual function while causing weight gain and muscle loss.

If men experience some of these symptoms or become curious about their testosterone levels, they shouldn’t self-diagnose or rely on two guys promoting a TV show, Dr. Bajic says.

Instead, they should see their primary care doctor for a simple blood test, he says. Patient and doctor can decide on treatments, which commonly include:

• Topical gels
• Arm patches
• Injections into the muscle of the leg or the fatty tissue of the belly
• Pellets placed under the skin

Diet, exercise, sleep, and other factors play a role.
 

‘So much misinformation’

The men’s health consumer market is bloated with products promising to raise testosterone levels and help men boost their bedroom performance, among other claims.

But they’re usually based on nothing more than marketing, and erectile disfunction is more commonly caused by reduced blood flow than a lack of testosterone, Dr. Bajic says.

“It all comes down to looking at all of these as a consumer and as a patient ... with a critical eye. There’s always a new ‘cure all’ for whatever your ailment is,” he says.

Testosterone levels change throughout the day. It’s thought to be produced during REM sleep, which can be diminished by alcohol use and other factors.

“All these things are related,” Dr. Bajic said, so there’s no reason to flash a light where it’s usually not seen – especially since neither the safety nor efficacy of testicle tanning has been established.

Oregon urologist Ashley Winter, MD, got into the Twitter fray about Carlson’s comments.

“Also, by definition you CANNOT have data on testicle tanning because you cannot TAN an internal organ,” she said on the social media network. “Tanning your scrotal sack and calling it ‘testicle tanning,’ is like tanning your abdominal skin and calling it ‘liver tanning.’”
 

What advocates say

What do proponents of red light therapy say? A Men’s Health article claims red light “works to stimulate ATP production, increase energy available to the cell and in particular, increase the activity of the Leydig cells in your testes, which are the cells responsible for testosterone production.”

The article also helpfully points out: “It’s important to note that there are currently no light therapy devices on the market cleared by FDA for the enhanced production of testosterone LED-based therapy.” And many lamps sold for red light therapy can get so hot that they damage the skin.

The author ordered a Joovv device, which Mr. Carlson’s “fitness professional” guest name-dropped. They range from $600 to almost $10,000. He liked the way it felt and said it seemed to improve his sexual performance.
 

Still a hard sell

Atlanta dermatologist Emily de Golian, MD, says tanning genitalia can be dangerous to the skin.

“There is no such thing as a safe tan, all tanning is indicative of sun damage in the skin and is the body’s effort to shield the DNA from further damage, and tanning increases the risk of skin cancer,” she says. “Scrotal skin is particularly delicate and sensitive to sun exposure, and the risk of sunburn, which further increases the risk of skin cancer, is high.”

Mat Rezaei, founder and CEO of UPGUYS, which provides erectile disfunction medicine, says, “UV light has no negative or positive response to balancing testosterone deficiency.”

Even frequent Fox guest Kid Rock wasn’t buying into the idea.

“Dude, stop! Testicle tanning? Come on,” Mr. Rock said to Mr. Carlson. “I mean, I haven’t heard anything that good in a long time.”

“Open your mind,” said Mr. Carlson as he laughed along with the musician.

Kid Rock replied, “I’m starting a punk rock band and it’s called Testicle Tanning. That’s the end of it.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – In just over one-third of patients with metastatic melanoma who had experienced disease progression while receiving multiple prior lines of therapy, including immunotherapy and targeted agents, objective clinical responses occurred with a customized cell therapy based on T cells extracted directly from tumor tissue.

The product, called lifileucel, is custom made for each patient and utilizes tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) extracted from tumor lesions. This approach differs from other cell-based therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which utilizes T cells collected from the patient’s blood.

The new results come from a phase 2 trial conducted in 66 patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who received a single dose of the product. The objective response rate was 36.4%.

“Lifileucel has demonstrated efficacy and durability of response for patients with metastatic melanoma and represents a viable therapeutic option warranting further investigation,” commented Jason Alan Chesney, MD, PhD, from the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, the University of Louisville (Ky.).

He presented the new data at the virtual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021.

Customized cell therapy with TILs has been explored for the treatment of melanoma for more than a decade. Some researchers have reported durable response in 25% of patients.

However, “generalizing TIL therapy has been hampered by the complex and really not absolutely defined process for generating cells,” commented Philip Greenberg, MD, professor and head of the program in immunology in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who was the invited discussant.

The current study demonstrates that cell generation can be performed at a centralized facility that has the required technical expertise. The patient-specific products are then disseminated to multiple centers, he said. The study also demonstrates that TILs can be successfully generated from tumor sites other than skin or lymph nodes.

“Toxicity was, however, significant, although it was generally manageable, and it did occur early, generally within the first 2 weeks,” he noted.
 

Patient-derived product

Lifileucel is a tailor-made immunotherapy product created from melanoma tumor tissues resected from lesions in skin, lymph nodes, liver, lung, peritoneum, musculoskeletal system, breast, or other visceral organs. The cells are shipped to a central manufacturing facility, whre the TILs are isolated, cultured, expanded, and reinvigorated. The cells are then harvested and cryopreserved. The process takes about 22 days. The cryopreserved product is then shipped back to the treating facility.

Prior to receiving the expanded and rejuvenated TILs, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning with cyclophosphamide followed by fludarabine. The TILs are then delivered in a single infusion, followed by administration of up to six doses of interleukin-2 (IL-2).
 

Details from clinical trial

At the meeting, Dr. Chesney reported details on the 66 patients in the trial. They had metastatic melanoma that was progressing on treatment. The mean number of prior lines of therapy was 3.3. All of the patients had received prior anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents; 53 had received a cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor; and 15 had received a BRAF/MEK inhibitor.

These patients had a mean of six baseline target and nontarget lesions, and 28 patients had liver and/or brain metastases.

Just over a third of patients (24 of 66, 36.4%) had an objective response; three patients had a complete response; and 21 had a partial response. In addition, 29 patients had stable disease, and nine experienced disease progression. Four patients had not undergone the first assessment at the time of data cutoff.

After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the median duration of response was not reached. It ranged from 2.2 to > 35.2 months.

Since the data cutoff in April 2020, reduction of tumor burden has occurred in 50 of 62 evaluable patients. Reductions in the target lesion sum of diameters has occurred in 11 patients. In one patient, a partial response converted to a complete response 24 months after infusion, Dr. Chesney noted.

The mean number of TILs infused was 27.3 billion (27.3 x 109). Appropriate amounts of TILs were manufactured from tumor samples acquired across all sites, and reductions in target lesion sum of diameter were seen across the range of TIL total cell doses.

All patients experienced at least one adverse event of any grade; all but two experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Two patients died, one as a result of intra-abdominal hemorrhage considered possibly related to TIL therapy, and one from acute respiratory failure deemed not related to TILs.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and lymphopenia.

“The adverse event profile was manageable and was consistent with the underlying and the known profiles of the nonmyeloblative depletion regimen and IL-2,” Dr. Chesney said.

The decreasing frequency of adverse events over time reflects the potential benefit of the one-time infusion, and no new safety risks have been identified during more than 2 years of follow-up, he added.
 

Remaining questions, next steps

Dr. Greenberg commented that the one of the limitations of the study is that the investigators did not characterize the TIL product.

“Studies have predicted that there’s a particular type of cell, a stemlike T cell, that’s responsible for mediating the efficacy,” he commented. He referred to research from Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, where TILs were first used in 2002.

Dr. Greenberg also raised the question of whether high-dose IL-2 was required post infusion, given that the patients were lymphodepleted before receiving lifileucel.

Future steps for TIL therapy, he said, should include identification of biomarkers for success or failure; strategies to enhance generation and expansion of tumor-reactive T cells; postinfusion strategies, such as using vaccines and/or checkpoint inhibitors to increase therapeutic activity; genetic modifications to enhance the function of TILs in the tumor microenvironment; and research into other tumor types that may be effectively treated with TILs.

The study was supported by Iovance Biotherapeutics. Dr. Chesney has received research funding from Iovance and other companies and has consulted for Amgen and Replimune. Dr. Greenberg has served on scientific advisory boards, has received grant/research support, and owns stock in several companies that do not include Iovance.

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

NEW ORLEANS – In just over one-third of patients with metastatic melanoma who had experienced disease progression while receiving multiple prior lines of therapy, including immunotherapy and targeted agents, objective clinical responses occurred with a customized cell therapy based on T cells extracted directly from tumor tissue.

The product, called lifileucel, is custom made for each patient and utilizes tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) extracted from tumor lesions. This approach differs from other cell-based therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which utilizes T cells collected from the patient’s blood.

The new results come from a phase 2 trial conducted in 66 patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who received a single dose of the product. The objective response rate was 36.4%.

“Lifileucel has demonstrated efficacy and durability of response for patients with metastatic melanoma and represents a viable therapeutic option warranting further investigation,” commented Jason Alan Chesney, MD, PhD, from the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, the University of Louisville (Ky.).

He presented the new data at the virtual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021.

Customized cell therapy with TILs has been explored for the treatment of melanoma for more than a decade. Some researchers have reported durable response in 25% of patients.

However, “generalizing TIL therapy has been hampered by the complex and really not absolutely defined process for generating cells,” commented Philip Greenberg, MD, professor and head of the program in immunology in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who was the invited discussant.

The current study demonstrates that cell generation can be performed at a centralized facility that has the required technical expertise. The patient-specific products are then disseminated to multiple centers, he said. The study also demonstrates that TILs can be successfully generated from tumor sites other than skin or lymph nodes.

“Toxicity was, however, significant, although it was generally manageable, and it did occur early, generally within the first 2 weeks,” he noted.
 

Patient-derived product

Lifileucel is a tailor-made immunotherapy product created from melanoma tumor tissues resected from lesions in skin, lymph nodes, liver, lung, peritoneum, musculoskeletal system, breast, or other visceral organs. The cells are shipped to a central manufacturing facility, whre the TILs are isolated, cultured, expanded, and reinvigorated. The cells are then harvested and cryopreserved. The process takes about 22 days. The cryopreserved product is then shipped back to the treating facility.

Prior to receiving the expanded and rejuvenated TILs, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning with cyclophosphamide followed by fludarabine. The TILs are then delivered in a single infusion, followed by administration of up to six doses of interleukin-2 (IL-2).
 

Details from clinical trial

At the meeting, Dr. Chesney reported details on the 66 patients in the trial. They had metastatic melanoma that was progressing on treatment. The mean number of prior lines of therapy was 3.3. All of the patients had received prior anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents; 53 had received a cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor; and 15 had received a BRAF/MEK inhibitor.

These patients had a mean of six baseline target and nontarget lesions, and 28 patients had liver and/or brain metastases.

Just over a third of patients (24 of 66, 36.4%) had an objective response; three patients had a complete response; and 21 had a partial response. In addition, 29 patients had stable disease, and nine experienced disease progression. Four patients had not undergone the first assessment at the time of data cutoff.

After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the median duration of response was not reached. It ranged from 2.2 to > 35.2 months.

Since the data cutoff in April 2020, reduction of tumor burden has occurred in 50 of 62 evaluable patients. Reductions in the target lesion sum of diameters has occurred in 11 patients. In one patient, a partial response converted to a complete response 24 months after infusion, Dr. Chesney noted.

The mean number of TILs infused was 27.3 billion (27.3 x 109). Appropriate amounts of TILs were manufactured from tumor samples acquired across all sites, and reductions in target lesion sum of diameter were seen across the range of TIL total cell doses.

All patients experienced at least one adverse event of any grade; all but two experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Two patients died, one as a result of intra-abdominal hemorrhage considered possibly related to TIL therapy, and one from acute respiratory failure deemed not related to TILs.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and lymphopenia.

“The adverse event profile was manageable and was consistent with the underlying and the known profiles of the nonmyeloblative depletion regimen and IL-2,” Dr. Chesney said.

The decreasing frequency of adverse events over time reflects the potential benefit of the one-time infusion, and no new safety risks have been identified during more than 2 years of follow-up, he added.
 

Remaining questions, next steps

Dr. Greenberg commented that the one of the limitations of the study is that the investigators did not characterize the TIL product.

“Studies have predicted that there’s a particular type of cell, a stemlike T cell, that’s responsible for mediating the efficacy,” he commented. He referred to research from Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, where TILs were first used in 2002.

Dr. Greenberg also raised the question of whether high-dose IL-2 was required post infusion, given that the patients were lymphodepleted before receiving lifileucel.

Future steps for TIL therapy, he said, should include identification of biomarkers for success or failure; strategies to enhance generation and expansion of tumor-reactive T cells; postinfusion strategies, such as using vaccines and/or checkpoint inhibitors to increase therapeutic activity; genetic modifications to enhance the function of TILs in the tumor microenvironment; and research into other tumor types that may be effectively treated with TILs.

The study was supported by Iovance Biotherapeutics. Dr. Chesney has received research funding from Iovance and other companies and has consulted for Amgen and Replimune. Dr. Greenberg has served on scientific advisory boards, has received grant/research support, and owns stock in several companies that do not include Iovance.

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

NEW ORLEANS – In just over one-third of patients with metastatic melanoma who had experienced disease progression while receiving multiple prior lines of therapy, including immunotherapy and targeted agents, objective clinical responses occurred with a customized cell therapy based on T cells extracted directly from tumor tissue.

The product, called lifileucel, is custom made for each patient and utilizes tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) extracted from tumor lesions. This approach differs from other cell-based therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which utilizes T cells collected from the patient’s blood.

The new results come from a phase 2 trial conducted in 66 patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who received a single dose of the product. The objective response rate was 36.4%.

“Lifileucel has demonstrated efficacy and durability of response for patients with metastatic melanoma and represents a viable therapeutic option warranting further investigation,” commented Jason Alan Chesney, MD, PhD, from the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, the University of Louisville (Ky.).

He presented the new data at the virtual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021.

Customized cell therapy with TILs has been explored for the treatment of melanoma for more than a decade. Some researchers have reported durable response in 25% of patients.

However, “generalizing TIL therapy has been hampered by the complex and really not absolutely defined process for generating cells,” commented Philip Greenberg, MD, professor and head of the program in immunology in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who was the invited discussant.

The current study demonstrates that cell generation can be performed at a centralized facility that has the required technical expertise. The patient-specific products are then disseminated to multiple centers, he said. The study also demonstrates that TILs can be successfully generated from tumor sites other than skin or lymph nodes.

“Toxicity was, however, significant, although it was generally manageable, and it did occur early, generally within the first 2 weeks,” he noted.
 

Patient-derived product

Lifileucel is a tailor-made immunotherapy product created from melanoma tumor tissues resected from lesions in skin, lymph nodes, liver, lung, peritoneum, musculoskeletal system, breast, or other visceral organs. The cells are shipped to a central manufacturing facility, whre the TILs are isolated, cultured, expanded, and reinvigorated. The cells are then harvested and cryopreserved. The process takes about 22 days. The cryopreserved product is then shipped back to the treating facility.

Prior to receiving the expanded and rejuvenated TILs, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning with cyclophosphamide followed by fludarabine. The TILs are then delivered in a single infusion, followed by administration of up to six doses of interleukin-2 (IL-2).
 

Details from clinical trial

At the meeting, Dr. Chesney reported details on the 66 patients in the trial. They had metastatic melanoma that was progressing on treatment. The mean number of prior lines of therapy was 3.3. All of the patients had received prior anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents; 53 had received a cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor; and 15 had received a BRAF/MEK inhibitor.

These patients had a mean of six baseline target and nontarget lesions, and 28 patients had liver and/or brain metastases.

Just over a third of patients (24 of 66, 36.4%) had an objective response; three patients had a complete response; and 21 had a partial response. In addition, 29 patients had stable disease, and nine experienced disease progression. Four patients had not undergone the first assessment at the time of data cutoff.

After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the median duration of response was not reached. It ranged from 2.2 to > 35.2 months.

Since the data cutoff in April 2020, reduction of tumor burden has occurred in 50 of 62 evaluable patients. Reductions in the target lesion sum of diameters has occurred in 11 patients. In one patient, a partial response converted to a complete response 24 months after infusion, Dr. Chesney noted.

The mean number of TILs infused was 27.3 billion (27.3 x 109). Appropriate amounts of TILs were manufactured from tumor samples acquired across all sites, and reductions in target lesion sum of diameter were seen across the range of TIL total cell doses.

All patients experienced at least one adverse event of any grade; all but two experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Two patients died, one as a result of intra-abdominal hemorrhage considered possibly related to TIL therapy, and one from acute respiratory failure deemed not related to TILs.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and lymphopenia.

“The adverse event profile was manageable and was consistent with the underlying and the known profiles of the nonmyeloblative depletion regimen and IL-2,” Dr. Chesney said.

The decreasing frequency of adverse events over time reflects the potential benefit of the one-time infusion, and no new safety risks have been identified during more than 2 years of follow-up, he added.
 

Remaining questions, next steps

Dr. Greenberg commented that the one of the limitations of the study is that the investigators did not characterize the TIL product.

“Studies have predicted that there’s a particular type of cell, a stemlike T cell, that’s responsible for mediating the efficacy,” he commented. He referred to research from Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, where TILs were first used in 2002.

Dr. Greenberg also raised the question of whether high-dose IL-2 was required post infusion, given that the patients were lymphodepleted before receiving lifileucel.

Future steps for TIL therapy, he said, should include identification of biomarkers for success or failure; strategies to enhance generation and expansion of tumor-reactive T cells; postinfusion strategies, such as using vaccines and/or checkpoint inhibitors to increase therapeutic activity; genetic modifications to enhance the function of TILs in the tumor microenvironment; and research into other tumor types that may be effectively treated with TILs.

The study was supported by Iovance Biotherapeutics. Dr. Chesney has received research funding from Iovance and other companies and has consulted for Amgen and Replimune. Dr. Greenberg has served on scientific advisory boards, has received grant/research support, and owns stock in several companies that do not include Iovance.

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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