Dermatology News

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

Starting this month, I will be joining Dr. Leslie S. Baumann as a cocontributor to the Cosmeceutical Critique column, and since this is my first column, I would like to formally introduce myself. I am a cosmetic and general dermatologist in private practice in Miami and a longtime skin care enthusiast. My path toward becoming a dermatologist began when I was working in New York City, my hometown, as a scientific researcher, fulfilling my passion for scientific inquiry. After realizing that I most enjoyed applying discoveries made in the lab directly to patient care, I decided to pursue medical school at New York University before completing a dermatology residency at the University of Miami, serving as Chief Resident during my final year. Although I was born and raised in New York, staying in Miami was an obvious decision for me. In addition to the tropical weather and amazing lifestyle, the medical community in Miami supports adventure, creativity, and innovation, which are key aspects that drew me to the University of Miami and continue to drive my personal evolution in private practice.

I now practice at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute alongside my mentor, Dr. Baumann. I truly have my dream job – I get to talk skin care and do a wide array of cosmetics procedures, perform skin surgeries, and solve complex medical dermatology cases all in a day’s work. My career sits at the intersection of my passions for science, critical thinking, beauty, aesthetics, and most importantly, engaging with patients.

For my first column, I want to provide a newly minted dermatologist’s perspective on cosmeceuticals. I will focus this discussion on the limited training in cosmeceuticals during residency and the importance of learning about cosmeceuticals, and I will provide a simple framework to approach the design of skin care regimens and utilization of cosmeceuticals in practice.

The focus of a dermatology residency is on medical and surgical skills. We become experts in diagnosing and treating conditions ranging from life-threatening drug reactions like Stevens-Johnson Syndrome to complex diseases like dermatomyositis, utilizing medications and treatments ranging from cyclosporine and methotrexate to biologics and intravenous immunoglobulin, and performing advanced skin surgeries utilizing flaps and grafts to repair defects.

The discipline of cosmetic dermatology, let alone cosmeceuticals, accounts for a fraction of our didactic and hands-on training. I completed a top dermatology residency program that prepared me to treat any dermatologic condition; however, I honestly felt like I didn’t have a strong understanding of cosmeceuticals and skin care and how to integrate them with prescription therapies when I completed residency, which is a sentiment shared by residents across the country. I remember a study break while preparing for my final board exam when I went into a tailspin for an entire day trying to decode an ingredient list of a new “antiaging serum” and researching its mechanisms of action and the clinical data supporting the active ingredients in the serum, which included bakuchiol and a blend of peptides. As a dermatologist who likes to treat and provide recommendations based on scientific rationale and data to deliver the highest level of care, I admit that I felt insecure not being as knowledgeable about cosmeceuticals as I was about more complex dermatology treatments. As both a cosmetic and general dermatologist, discussing skin care and cosmeceuticals independent of or in conjunction with medical management occurs daily, and I recognized that becoming an expert in this area is essential to becoming a top, well-rounded dermatologist.
 

A gap in cosmeceutical education in dermatology residency

Multiple studies have established that the field of cosmetic dermatology comprises a fraction of dermatology residency training. In 2013, Kirby et al. published a survey of dermatology instructors and chief residents across the country and found that only 67% of responders reported having received formal lectures on cosmetic dermatology.¹ In 2014, Bauer et al. published a survey of dermatology program directors assessing attitudes toward cosmetic dermatology and reported that only 38% of program directors believed that cosmetic dermatology should be a necessary aspect of residency training.² A survey sent to dermatology residents published in 2012 found that among respondents, more than 58% of residency programs have an “encouraging or somewhat encouraging” attitude toward teaching cosmetic dermatology, yet 22% of programs had a “somewhat discouraging” or “discouraging” attitude.³ While these noted studies have focused on procedural aspects of cosmetic dermatology training, Feetham et al. surveyed dermatology residents and faculty to assess attitudes toward and training on skin care and cosmeceuticals specifically. Among resident respondents, most (74.5%) reported their education on skin care and cosmeceuticals has been “too little or nonexistent” during residency and 76.5% “agree or strongly agree” that it should be part of their education.4 In contrast, 60% of faculty reported resident education on skin care and cosmeceuticals is “just the right amount or too much” (P < .001).

In my personal experience as a resident, discussing skin care was emphasized when treating patients with eczema, contact dermatitis, acne, and hair disorders, but otherwise, the majority of skin care discussions relied on having a stock list of recommended cleansers, moisturizers, and sunscreens. In regards to cosmeceuticals for facial skin specifically, there were only a handful of instances in which alternative ingredients, such as vitamin C for hyperpigmentation, were discussed and specific brands were mentioned. Upon reflection, I wish I had more opportunity to see the clinical benefits of cosmeceuticals first hand, just like when I observe dupilumab clear patients with severe atopic dermatitis, rather than reading about it in textbooks and journals.

While one hypothesis for programs’ limited attention given to cosmetic training may be that it detracts from medical training, the survey by Bauer et al. found that residents did not feel less prepared (94.9%) or less interested (97.4%) in medical dermatology as a result of their cosmetic training.² In addition, providers in an academic dermatology residency may limit discussions of skin care because of the high patient volume and because extensive skin care discussions will not impact insurance billings. Academic dermatology programs often service patients with more financial constraints, which further limits OTC cosmeceutical discussions. In my residency experience, I had the opportunity to regularly treat more severe and rare dermatologic cases than those I encounter in private practice; therefore, I spent more time focusing on systemic therapies, with fewer opportunities to dedicate time to cosmeceuticals.
 

Why skin care and cosmeceuticals should be an essential aspect of residency training

Discussing skin care and cosmeceuticals is a valuable aspect of medical and general dermatology, not just aesthetic dermatology. When treating general dermatologic conditions, guidance on proper skin care can improve both adherence and efficacy of medical treatments. For example, an acne study by de Lucas et al. demonstrated that adherence to adjuvant treatment of acne (such as the use of moisturizers) was associated not only with a 2.4-fold increase in the probability of adherence to pharmacological treatment, but also with a significant reduction in acne severity.⁵ Aside from skin care, cosmeceuticals themselves have efficacy in treating general dermatologic conditions. In the treatment of acne, topical niacinamide, a popular cosmeceutical ingredient, has been shown to have sebosuppressive and anti-inflammatory effects, addressing key aspects of acne pathogenesis.⁶ A double-blind study by Draelos et al. reported topical 2% niacinamide was effective in reducing the rate of sebum excretion in 50 Japanese patients over 4 weeks.⁶ In several double-blind studies that have compared twice daily application of 4% nicotinamide gel with the same application of 1% clindamycin gel in moderate inflammatory acne over 8 weeks, nicotinamide gel reduced the number of inflammatory papules and acne lesions to a level comparable with clindamycin gel.6 These studies support the use of niacinamide cosmeceutical products as an adjunctive treatment for acne.

With increased clinical data supporting cosmeceuticals, it can be expected that some cosmeceuticals will substitute traditional prescription medications in the dermatologists’ arsenal. For example, hydroquinone – both prescription strength and OTC 2% – is a workhorse in treating melasma; however, there is increasing interest in hydroquinone-free treatments, especially since OTC cosmeceuticals containing 2% hydroquinone were banned in 2020 because of safety concerns. Dermatologists will therefore need to provide guidance about hydroquinone alternatives for skin lightening, including soy, licorice extracts, kojic acid, arbutin, niacinamide, N-acetylglucosamine, and vitamin C, among others.⁷ Utilizing knowledge of a cosmeceutical’s mechanisms of action and clinical data, the dermatologist is in the best position to guide patients toward optimal ingredients and dispel cosmeceutical myths. Given that cosmeceuticals are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, it is even more important that the dermatologist serves as an authority on cosmeceuticals.
 

How to become a master skin care and cosmeceutical prescriber

A common pitfall I have observed among practitioners less experienced with aesthetic-focused skin care and cosmeceuticals is adapting a one-size-fits-all approach. In the one-size-fits-all approach, every patient concerned about aging gets the same vitamin C serum and retinoid, and every patient with hyperpigmentation gets the same hydroquinone prescription, for example. This approach, however, does not take into account unique differences in patients’ skin. Below

is the basic skin care framework that I follow, taught to me by Dr. Baumann. It utilizes an individualized approach based on the patient’s skin qualities to achieve optimal results.

Determine the patient’s skin type (dry vs. oily; sensitive vs. not sensitive; pigmentation issues vs. no hyperpigmentation; wrinkled and mature vs. nonwrinkled) and identify concerns (e.g., dark spots, redness, acne, dehydration).

Separate products into categories of cleansers, eye creams, moisturizers, sun protection, and treatments. Treatments refers to any additional products in a skin care regimen intended to ameliorate a particular condition (e.g., vitamin C for hyperpigmentation, retinoids for fine lines).

Choose products for each category in step 2 (cleansers, eye creams, moisturizers, sun protection, treatments) that are complementary to the patient’s skin type (determined in step 1) and aid the patient in meeting their particular skin goals. For example, a salicylic acid cleanser would be beneficial for a patient with oily skin and acne, but this same cleanser may be too drying and irritating for an acne patient with dry skin.

Ensure that chosen ingredients and products work together harmoniously. For example, while the acne patient may benefit from a salicylic acid cleanser and retinoid cream, using them in succession initially may be overly drying for some patients.

Spend the time to make sure patients understand the appropriate order of application and recognize when efficacy of a product is impacted by another product in the regimen. For example, a low pH cleanser can increase penetration of an ascorbic acid product that follows it in the regimen.

After establishing a basic skin care framework, the next step for beginners is learning about ingredients and their mechanisms of action and familiarizing themselves with scientific and clinical studies. Until cosmeceuticals become an integral part of the training curriculum, dermatologists can gain knowledge independently by reading literature and studies on cosmeceutical active ingredients and experimenting with consumer products. I look forward to regularly contributing to this column to further our awareness and understanding of the mechanisms of and data supporting cosmeceuticals so that we can better guide our patients.

Please feel free to email me at chloe@derm.net or message me on Instagram @DrChloeGoldman with ideas that you would like me to address in this column.
 

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami, and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a new general dermatology practice. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other relevant disclosures.

References

1. Kirby JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(2):e23-8.

2. Bauer et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(2):125-9.

3. Group A et al. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(12):1975-80.

4. Feetham HJ et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(2):220-6.

5. de Lucas R et al. BMC Dermatol. 2015;15:17.

6. Araviiskaia E and Dreno BJ. Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(6):926-35.

7. Leyden JJ et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(10):1140-5.

Starting this month, I will be joining Dr. Leslie S. Baumann as a cocontributor to the Cosmeceutical Critique column, and since this is my first column, I would like to formally introduce myself. I am a cosmetic and general dermatologist in private practice in Miami and a longtime skin care enthusiast. My path toward becoming a dermatologist began when I was working in New York City, my hometown, as a scientific researcher, fulfilling my passion for scientific inquiry. After realizing that I most enjoyed applying discoveries made in the lab directly to patient care, I decided to pursue medical school at New York University before completing a dermatology residency at the University of Miami, serving as Chief Resident during my final year. Although I was born and raised in New York, staying in Miami was an obvious decision for me. In addition to the tropical weather and amazing lifestyle, the medical community in Miami supports adventure, creativity, and innovation, which are key aspects that drew me to the University of Miami and continue to drive my personal evolution in private practice.

I now practice at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute alongside my mentor, Dr. Baumann. I truly have my dream job – I get to talk skin care and do a wide array of cosmetics procedures, perform skin surgeries, and solve complex medical dermatology cases all in a day’s work. My career sits at the intersection of my passions for science, critical thinking, beauty, aesthetics, and most importantly, engaging with patients.

For my first column, I want to provide a newly minted dermatologist’s perspective on cosmeceuticals. I will focus this discussion on the limited training in cosmeceuticals during residency and the importance of learning about cosmeceuticals, and I will provide a simple framework to approach the design of skin care regimens and utilization of cosmeceuticals in practice.

The focus of a dermatology residency is on medical and surgical skills. We become experts in diagnosing and treating conditions ranging from life-threatening drug reactions like Stevens-Johnson Syndrome to complex diseases like dermatomyositis, utilizing medications and treatments ranging from cyclosporine and methotrexate to biologics and intravenous immunoglobulin, and performing advanced skin surgeries utilizing flaps and grafts to repair defects.

The discipline of cosmetic dermatology, let alone cosmeceuticals, accounts for a fraction of our didactic and hands-on training. I completed a top dermatology residency program that prepared me to treat any dermatologic condition; however, I honestly felt like I didn’t have a strong understanding of cosmeceuticals and skin care and how to integrate them with prescription therapies when I completed residency, which is a sentiment shared by residents across the country. I remember a study break while preparing for my final board exam when I went into a tailspin for an entire day trying to decode an ingredient list of a new “antiaging serum” and researching its mechanisms of action and the clinical data supporting the active ingredients in the serum, which included bakuchiol and a blend of peptides. As a dermatologist who likes to treat and provide recommendations based on scientific rationale and data to deliver the highest level of care, I admit that I felt insecure not being as knowledgeable about cosmeceuticals as I was about more complex dermatology treatments. As both a cosmetic and general dermatologist, discussing skin care and cosmeceuticals independent of or in conjunction with medical management occurs daily, and I recognized that becoming an expert in this area is essential to becoming a top, well-rounded dermatologist.
 

A gap in cosmeceutical education in dermatology residency

Multiple studies have established that the field of cosmetic dermatology comprises a fraction of dermatology residency training. In 2013, Kirby et al. published a survey of dermatology instructors and chief residents across the country and found that only 67% of responders reported having received formal lectures on cosmetic dermatology.¹ In 2014, Bauer et al. published a survey of dermatology program directors assessing attitudes toward cosmetic dermatology and reported that only 38% of program directors believed that cosmetic dermatology should be a necessary aspect of residency training.² A survey sent to dermatology residents published in 2012 found that among respondents, more than 58% of residency programs have an “encouraging or somewhat encouraging” attitude toward teaching cosmetic dermatology, yet 22% of programs had a “somewhat discouraging” or “discouraging” attitude.³ While these noted studies have focused on procedural aspects of cosmetic dermatology training, Feetham et al. surveyed dermatology residents and faculty to assess attitudes toward and training on skin care and cosmeceuticals specifically. Among resident respondents, most (74.5%) reported their education on skin care and cosmeceuticals has been “too little or nonexistent” during residency and 76.5% “agree or strongly agree” that it should be part of their education.4 In contrast, 60% of faculty reported resident education on skin care and cosmeceuticals is “just the right amount or too much” (P < .001).

In my personal experience as a resident, discussing skin care was emphasized when treating patients with eczema, contact dermatitis, acne, and hair disorders, but otherwise, the majority of skin care discussions relied on having a stock list of recommended cleansers, moisturizers, and sunscreens. In regards to cosmeceuticals for facial skin specifically, there were only a handful of instances in which alternative ingredients, such as vitamin C for hyperpigmentation, were discussed and specific brands were mentioned. Upon reflection, I wish I had more opportunity to see the clinical benefits of cosmeceuticals first hand, just like when I observe dupilumab clear patients with severe atopic dermatitis, rather than reading about it in textbooks and journals.

While one hypothesis for programs’ limited attention given to cosmetic training may be that it detracts from medical training, the survey by Bauer et al. found that residents did not feel less prepared (94.9%) or less interested (97.4%) in medical dermatology as a result of their cosmetic training.² In addition, providers in an academic dermatology residency may limit discussions of skin care because of the high patient volume and because extensive skin care discussions will not impact insurance billings. Academic dermatology programs often service patients with more financial constraints, which further limits OTC cosmeceutical discussions. In my residency experience, I had the opportunity to regularly treat more severe and rare dermatologic cases than those I encounter in private practice; therefore, I spent more time focusing on systemic therapies, with fewer opportunities to dedicate time to cosmeceuticals.
 

Why skin care and cosmeceuticals should be an essential aspect of residency training

Discussing skin care and cosmeceuticals is a valuable aspect of medical and general dermatology, not just aesthetic dermatology. When treating general dermatologic conditions, guidance on proper skin care can improve both adherence and efficacy of medical treatments. For example, an acne study by de Lucas et al. demonstrated that adherence to adjuvant treatment of acne (such as the use of moisturizers) was associated not only with a 2.4-fold increase in the probability of adherence to pharmacological treatment, but also with a significant reduction in acne severity.⁵ Aside from skin care, cosmeceuticals themselves have efficacy in treating general dermatologic conditions. In the treatment of acne, topical niacinamide, a popular cosmeceutical ingredient, has been shown to have sebosuppressive and anti-inflammatory effects, addressing key aspects of acne pathogenesis.⁶ A double-blind study by Draelos et al. reported topical 2% niacinamide was effective in reducing the rate of sebum excretion in 50 Japanese patients over 4 weeks.⁶ In several double-blind studies that have compared twice daily application of 4% nicotinamide gel with the same application of 1% clindamycin gel in moderate inflammatory acne over 8 weeks, nicotinamide gel reduced the number of inflammatory papules and acne lesions to a level comparable with clindamycin gel.6 These studies support the use of niacinamide cosmeceutical products as an adjunctive treatment for acne.

With increased clinical data supporting cosmeceuticals, it can be expected that some cosmeceuticals will substitute traditional prescription medications in the dermatologists’ arsenal. For example, hydroquinone – both prescription strength and OTC 2% – is a workhorse in treating melasma; however, there is increasing interest in hydroquinone-free treatments, especially since OTC cosmeceuticals containing 2% hydroquinone were banned in 2020 because of safety concerns. Dermatologists will therefore need to provide guidance about hydroquinone alternatives for skin lightening, including soy, licorice extracts, kojic acid, arbutin, niacinamide, N-acetylglucosamine, and vitamin C, among others.⁷ Utilizing knowledge of a cosmeceutical’s mechanisms of action and clinical data, the dermatologist is in the best position to guide patients toward optimal ingredients and dispel cosmeceutical myths. Given that cosmeceuticals are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, it is even more important that the dermatologist serves as an authority on cosmeceuticals.
 

How to become a master skin care and cosmeceutical prescriber

A common pitfall I have observed among practitioners less experienced with aesthetic-focused skin care and cosmeceuticals is adapting a one-size-fits-all approach. In the one-size-fits-all approach, every patient concerned about aging gets the same vitamin C serum and retinoid, and every patient with hyperpigmentation gets the same hydroquinone prescription, for example. This approach, however, does not take into account unique differences in patients’ skin. Below

is the basic skin care framework that I follow, taught to me by Dr. Baumann. It utilizes an individualized approach based on the patient’s skin qualities to achieve optimal results.

Determine the patient’s skin type (dry vs. oily; sensitive vs. not sensitive; pigmentation issues vs. no hyperpigmentation; wrinkled and mature vs. nonwrinkled) and identify concerns (e.g., dark spots, redness, acne, dehydration).

Separate products into categories of cleansers, eye creams, moisturizers, sun protection, and treatments. Treatments refers to any additional products in a skin care regimen intended to ameliorate a particular condition (e.g., vitamin C for hyperpigmentation, retinoids for fine lines).

Choose products for each category in step 2 (cleansers, eye creams, moisturizers, sun protection, treatments) that are complementary to the patient’s skin type (determined in step 1) and aid the patient in meeting their particular skin goals. For example, a salicylic acid cleanser would be beneficial for a patient with oily skin and acne, but this same cleanser may be too drying and irritating for an acne patient with dry skin.

Ensure that chosen ingredients and products work together harmoniously. For example, while the acne patient may benefit from a salicylic acid cleanser and retinoid cream, using them in succession initially may be overly drying for some patients.

Spend the time to make sure patients understand the appropriate order of application and recognize when efficacy of a product is impacted by another product in the regimen. For example, a low pH cleanser can increase penetration of an ascorbic acid product that follows it in the regimen.

After establishing a basic skin care framework, the next step for beginners is learning about ingredients and their mechanisms of action and familiarizing themselves with scientific and clinical studies. Until cosmeceuticals become an integral part of the training curriculum, dermatologists can gain knowledge independently by reading literature and studies on cosmeceutical active ingredients and experimenting with consumer products. I look forward to regularly contributing to this column to further our awareness and understanding of the mechanisms of and data supporting cosmeceuticals so that we can better guide our patients.

Please feel free to email me at chloe@derm.net or message me on Instagram @DrChloeGoldman with ideas that you would like me to address in this column.
 

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami, and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a new general dermatology practice. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other relevant disclosures.

References

1. Kirby JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(2):e23-8.

2. Bauer et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(2):125-9.

3. Group A et al. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(12):1975-80.

4. Feetham HJ et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(2):220-6.

5. de Lucas R et al. BMC Dermatol. 2015;15:17.

6. Araviiskaia E and Dreno BJ. Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(6):926-35.

7. Leyden JJ et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(10):1140-5.

Starting this month, I will be joining Dr. Leslie S. Baumann as a cocontributor to the Cosmeceutical Critique column, and since this is my first column, I would like to formally introduce myself. I am a cosmetic and general dermatologist in private practice in Miami and a longtime skin care enthusiast. My path toward becoming a dermatologist began when I was working in New York City, my hometown, as a scientific researcher, fulfilling my passion for scientific inquiry. After realizing that I most enjoyed applying discoveries made in the lab directly to patient care, I decided to pursue medical school at New York University before completing a dermatology residency at the University of Miami, serving as Chief Resident during my final year. Although I was born and raised in New York, staying in Miami was an obvious decision for me. In addition to the tropical weather and amazing lifestyle, the medical community in Miami supports adventure, creativity, and innovation, which are key aspects that drew me to the University of Miami and continue to drive my personal evolution in private practice.

I now practice at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute alongside my mentor, Dr. Baumann. I truly have my dream job – I get to talk skin care and do a wide array of cosmetics procedures, perform skin surgeries, and solve complex medical dermatology cases all in a day’s work. My career sits at the intersection of my passions for science, critical thinking, beauty, aesthetics, and most importantly, engaging with patients.

For my first column, I want to provide a newly minted dermatologist’s perspective on cosmeceuticals. I will focus this discussion on the limited training in cosmeceuticals during residency and the importance of learning about cosmeceuticals, and I will provide a simple framework to approach the design of skin care regimens and utilization of cosmeceuticals in practice.

The focus of a dermatology residency is on medical and surgical skills. We become experts in diagnosing and treating conditions ranging from life-threatening drug reactions like Stevens-Johnson Syndrome to complex diseases like dermatomyositis, utilizing medications and treatments ranging from cyclosporine and methotrexate to biologics and intravenous immunoglobulin, and performing advanced skin surgeries utilizing flaps and grafts to repair defects.

The discipline of cosmetic dermatology, let alone cosmeceuticals, accounts for a fraction of our didactic and hands-on training. I completed a top dermatology residency program that prepared me to treat any dermatologic condition; however, I honestly felt like I didn’t have a strong understanding of cosmeceuticals and skin care and how to integrate them with prescription therapies when I completed residency, which is a sentiment shared by residents across the country. I remember a study break while preparing for my final board exam when I went into a tailspin for an entire day trying to decode an ingredient list of a new “antiaging serum” and researching its mechanisms of action and the clinical data supporting the active ingredients in the serum, which included bakuchiol and a blend of peptides. As a dermatologist who likes to treat and provide recommendations based on scientific rationale and data to deliver the highest level of care, I admit that I felt insecure not being as knowledgeable about cosmeceuticals as I was about more complex dermatology treatments. As both a cosmetic and general dermatologist, discussing skin care and cosmeceuticals independent of or in conjunction with medical management occurs daily, and I recognized that becoming an expert in this area is essential to becoming a top, well-rounded dermatologist.
 

A gap in cosmeceutical education in dermatology residency

Multiple studies have established that the field of cosmetic dermatology comprises a fraction of dermatology residency training. In 2013, Kirby et al. published a survey of dermatology instructors and chief residents across the country and found that only 67% of responders reported having received formal lectures on cosmetic dermatology.¹ In 2014, Bauer et al. published a survey of dermatology program directors assessing attitudes toward cosmetic dermatology and reported that only 38% of program directors believed that cosmetic dermatology should be a necessary aspect of residency training.² A survey sent to dermatology residents published in 2012 found that among respondents, more than 58% of residency programs have an “encouraging or somewhat encouraging” attitude toward teaching cosmetic dermatology, yet 22% of programs had a “somewhat discouraging” or “discouraging” attitude.³ While these noted studies have focused on procedural aspects of cosmetic dermatology training, Feetham et al. surveyed dermatology residents and faculty to assess attitudes toward and training on skin care and cosmeceuticals specifically. Among resident respondents, most (74.5%) reported their education on skin care and cosmeceuticals has been “too little or nonexistent” during residency and 76.5% “agree or strongly agree” that it should be part of their education.4 In contrast, 60% of faculty reported resident education on skin care and cosmeceuticals is “just the right amount or too much” (P < .001).

In my personal experience as a resident, discussing skin care was emphasized when treating patients with eczema, contact dermatitis, acne, and hair disorders, but otherwise, the majority of skin care discussions relied on having a stock list of recommended cleansers, moisturizers, and sunscreens. In regards to cosmeceuticals for facial skin specifically, there were only a handful of instances in which alternative ingredients, such as vitamin C for hyperpigmentation, were discussed and specific brands were mentioned. Upon reflection, I wish I had more opportunity to see the clinical benefits of cosmeceuticals first hand, just like when I observe dupilumab clear patients with severe atopic dermatitis, rather than reading about it in textbooks and journals.

While one hypothesis for programs’ limited attention given to cosmetic training may be that it detracts from medical training, the survey by Bauer et al. found that residents did not feel less prepared (94.9%) or less interested (97.4%) in medical dermatology as a result of their cosmetic training.² In addition, providers in an academic dermatology residency may limit discussions of skin care because of the high patient volume and because extensive skin care discussions will not impact insurance billings. Academic dermatology programs often service patients with more financial constraints, which further limits OTC cosmeceutical discussions. In my residency experience, I had the opportunity to regularly treat more severe and rare dermatologic cases than those I encounter in private practice; therefore, I spent more time focusing on systemic therapies, with fewer opportunities to dedicate time to cosmeceuticals.
 

Why skin care and cosmeceuticals should be an essential aspect of residency training

Discussing skin care and cosmeceuticals is a valuable aspect of medical and general dermatology, not just aesthetic dermatology. When treating general dermatologic conditions, guidance on proper skin care can improve both adherence and efficacy of medical treatments. For example, an acne study by de Lucas et al. demonstrated that adherence to adjuvant treatment of acne (such as the use of moisturizers) was associated not only with a 2.4-fold increase in the probability of adherence to pharmacological treatment, but also with a significant reduction in acne severity.⁵ Aside from skin care, cosmeceuticals themselves have efficacy in treating general dermatologic conditions. In the treatment of acne, topical niacinamide, a popular cosmeceutical ingredient, has been shown to have sebosuppressive and anti-inflammatory effects, addressing key aspects of acne pathogenesis.⁶ A double-blind study by Draelos et al. reported topical 2% niacinamide was effective in reducing the rate of sebum excretion in 50 Japanese patients over 4 weeks.⁶ In several double-blind studies that have compared twice daily application of 4% nicotinamide gel with the same application of 1% clindamycin gel in moderate inflammatory acne over 8 weeks, nicotinamide gel reduced the number of inflammatory papules and acne lesions to a level comparable with clindamycin gel.6 These studies support the use of niacinamide cosmeceutical products as an adjunctive treatment for acne.

With increased clinical data supporting cosmeceuticals, it can be expected that some cosmeceuticals will substitute traditional prescription medications in the dermatologists’ arsenal. For example, hydroquinone – both prescription strength and OTC 2% – is a workhorse in treating melasma; however, there is increasing interest in hydroquinone-free treatments, especially since OTC cosmeceuticals containing 2% hydroquinone were banned in 2020 because of safety concerns. Dermatologists will therefore need to provide guidance about hydroquinone alternatives for skin lightening, including soy, licorice extracts, kojic acid, arbutin, niacinamide, N-acetylglucosamine, and vitamin C, among others.⁷ Utilizing knowledge of a cosmeceutical’s mechanisms of action and clinical data, the dermatologist is in the best position to guide patients toward optimal ingredients and dispel cosmeceutical myths. Given that cosmeceuticals are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, it is even more important that the dermatologist serves as an authority on cosmeceuticals.
 

How to become a master skin care and cosmeceutical prescriber

A common pitfall I have observed among practitioners less experienced with aesthetic-focused skin care and cosmeceuticals is adapting a one-size-fits-all approach. In the one-size-fits-all approach, every patient concerned about aging gets the same vitamin C serum and retinoid, and every patient with hyperpigmentation gets the same hydroquinone prescription, for example. This approach, however, does not take into account unique differences in patients’ skin. Below

is the basic skin care framework that I follow, taught to me by Dr. Baumann. It utilizes an individualized approach based on the patient’s skin qualities to achieve optimal results.

Determine the patient’s skin type (dry vs. oily; sensitive vs. not sensitive; pigmentation issues vs. no hyperpigmentation; wrinkled and mature vs. nonwrinkled) and identify concerns (e.g., dark spots, redness, acne, dehydration).

Separate products into categories of cleansers, eye creams, moisturizers, sun protection, and treatments. Treatments refers to any additional products in a skin care regimen intended to ameliorate a particular condition (e.g., vitamin C for hyperpigmentation, retinoids for fine lines).

Choose products for each category in step 2 (cleansers, eye creams, moisturizers, sun protection, treatments) that are complementary to the patient’s skin type (determined in step 1) and aid the patient in meeting their particular skin goals. For example, a salicylic acid cleanser would be beneficial for a patient with oily skin and acne, but this same cleanser may be too drying and irritating for an acne patient with dry skin.

Ensure that chosen ingredients and products work together harmoniously. For example, while the acne patient may benefit from a salicylic acid cleanser and retinoid cream, using them in succession initially may be overly drying for some patients.

Spend the time to make sure patients understand the appropriate order of application and recognize when efficacy of a product is impacted by another product in the regimen. For example, a low pH cleanser can increase penetration of an ascorbic acid product that follows it in the regimen.

After establishing a basic skin care framework, the next step for beginners is learning about ingredients and their mechanisms of action and familiarizing themselves with scientific and clinical studies. Until cosmeceuticals become an integral part of the training curriculum, dermatologists can gain knowledge independently by reading literature and studies on cosmeceutical active ingredients and experimenting with consumer products. I look forward to regularly contributing to this column to further our awareness and understanding of the mechanisms of and data supporting cosmeceuticals so that we can better guide our patients.

Please feel free to email me at chloe@derm.net or message me on Instagram @DrChloeGoldman with ideas that you would like me to address in this column.
 

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami, and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a new general dermatology practice. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other relevant disclosures.

References

1. Kirby JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(2):e23-8.

2. Bauer et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(2):125-9.

3. Group A et al. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(12):1975-80.

4. Feetham HJ et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(2):220-6.

5. de Lucas R et al. BMC Dermatol. 2015;15:17.

6. Araviiskaia E and Dreno BJ. Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(6):926-35.

7. Leyden JJ et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(10):1140-5.

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz), a Janus kinase inhibitor, helped regrow hair in three-quarters of pediatric patients with alopecia areata (AA) in a small study conducted at the University of Colorado and published in Pediatric Dermatology.

The 11 pediatric patients, ages 8-18 years, all with a diagnosis of AA, were treated with tofacitinib. Eight patients, or nearly 73%, experienced hair regrowth, while the other three (27.3%) did not, as the investigators reported in the retrospective chart review.

“A success rate of 73% is very good,” said lead author Cory A. Dunnick, MD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. No serious adverse events occurred, and adverse events of any kind were limited, the researchers found.

“It is important to get information into the literature about potential treatments for severe alopecia areata because there is no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapy at the present time,” Dr. Dunnick told this news organization. Patients’ insurance plans often deny non–FDA-approved therapies unless there are data to support their use.

The researchers found no correlation between the dose, duration of treatment, or the presence of comorbidities and clinical response.

Oral tofacitinib has been shown to be effective and well tolerated for AA in adults, the researchers said. They referred to recent studies that have used JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib, “in an effort to inhibit T-cell activation and halt disease progression in adult and pediatric patients” with AA.
 

Study details

Of the 11 patients evaluated, 6 had alopecia universalis, 1 had alopecia totalis, and 4 had patchy AA. Concomitant medical conditions known to be associated with AA affected four patients. These included atopic dermatitis, autoimmune hypothyroidism, and asthma. One patient reported having two brothers with AA.

The median disease duration was 6 years. “In my experience, JAK inhibitors are less effective for patients with longstanding – more than 10 years – alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis,” Dr. Dunnick said.

Previously, patients had been given methotrexate, oral prednisone, intralesional triamcinolone, topical corticosteroids, and topical diphenylcyclopropenone. During treatment with tofacitinib, 5 of the 11 patients also received topical steroid treatment.

The study was a retrospective chart review, so dosing was not standardized, the researchers said. Most took 5-10 mg twice daily. Median treatment time was 32 months, with a range of 5-39 months.

Patients with a complete or near complete clinical response were categorized as responders; subjectively, these were the patients who had persistent hair regrowth over more than 50% of affected areas. Five patients had complete regrowth of hair on the scalp, eyebrows, and body during treatment. Others had incomplete responses. For instance, one patient had improved growth of eyelashes and eyebrows but not on the scalp. Once the medication was increased to 15 mg daily, the patient had complete regrowth of body hair, eyelashes, and eyebrows but slow regrowth on the scalp after 1 year of treatment.

“Patients are very happy with regrowth of their hair,” Dr. Dunnick said, noting that severe AA affects self-esteem and quality of life.
 

Other research

In a retrospective study that looked at the effects of oral tofacitinib given to 14 preadolescent patients with AA, 9 experienced “clinically significant improvement” in their Severity of Alopecia Tool score. Three had complete remission, and seven (63.6%) had more than a 50% improvement in the score.

Mechanisms, concerns

The researchers of the current study explained that interferon signaling activity through the JAK pathways is a key mediator of the inflammation and cytotoxic T-cell response in AA. That modulation of the signaling may decrease disease progression, as the results of the current chart review suggest.

A main concern, the researchers wrote, is the potential for significant adverse events. Although this chart review did not find any, the researchers did see some transient lab abnormalities. One study found lab abnormalities in such measures as triglycerides and cholesterol.

Asked to comment on the study results, Brett King, MD, PHD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that the study “is an important addition to a series of articles dating back to 2017 showing efficacy of tofacitinib in the pediatric age group.” The results are similar to those of previous studies, “showing that severe AA can be treated effectively with tofacitinib. Cumulatively, there is significant data to support treatment of this age group with JAK inhibitors,” he said.

At the 2021 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting, Dr. King presented the results of two phase 3 studies, which found that treatment with the oral JAK inhibitor baricitinib resulted in substantial hair growth in adults with AA. He and colleagues have also reported positive results of tofacitinib in treating AA in four children ages 8-10, with alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, and in adolescents with AA.

Currently, three large, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials of other JAK inhibitors for AA are underway – ritlecitinib, baricitinib, and ruxolitinib – and the ritlecitinib trial includes adolescents (ages 12 years and older). “It is the results of these trials that we eagerly await, because FDA approval will bring greater access to these treatments,” Dr. King said.

Dr. Dunnick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. King has served on advisory boards and/or is a consultant and/or a clinical trial investigator for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, and others. He is on speaker bureaus for AbbVie, Incyte, Pfizer, and others.

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

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz), a Janus kinase inhibitor, helped regrow hair in three-quarters of pediatric patients with alopecia areata (AA) in a small study conducted at the University of Colorado and published in Pediatric Dermatology.

The 11 pediatric patients, ages 8-18 years, all with a diagnosis of AA, were treated with tofacitinib. Eight patients, or nearly 73%, experienced hair regrowth, while the other three (27.3%) did not, as the investigators reported in the retrospective chart review.

“A success rate of 73% is very good,” said lead author Cory A. Dunnick, MD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. No serious adverse events occurred, and adverse events of any kind were limited, the researchers found.

“It is important to get information into the literature about potential treatments for severe alopecia areata because there is no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapy at the present time,” Dr. Dunnick told this news organization. Patients’ insurance plans often deny non–FDA-approved therapies unless there are data to support their use.

The researchers found no correlation between the dose, duration of treatment, or the presence of comorbidities and clinical response.

Oral tofacitinib has been shown to be effective and well tolerated for AA in adults, the researchers said. They referred to recent studies that have used JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib, “in an effort to inhibit T-cell activation and halt disease progression in adult and pediatric patients” with AA.
 

Study details

Of the 11 patients evaluated, 6 had alopecia universalis, 1 had alopecia totalis, and 4 had patchy AA. Concomitant medical conditions known to be associated with AA affected four patients. These included atopic dermatitis, autoimmune hypothyroidism, and asthma. One patient reported having two brothers with AA.

The median disease duration was 6 years. “In my experience, JAK inhibitors are less effective for patients with longstanding – more than 10 years – alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis,” Dr. Dunnick said.

Previously, patients had been given methotrexate, oral prednisone, intralesional triamcinolone, topical corticosteroids, and topical diphenylcyclopropenone. During treatment with tofacitinib, 5 of the 11 patients also received topical steroid treatment.

The study was a retrospective chart review, so dosing was not standardized, the researchers said. Most took 5-10 mg twice daily. Median treatment time was 32 months, with a range of 5-39 months.

Patients with a complete or near complete clinical response were categorized as responders; subjectively, these were the patients who had persistent hair regrowth over more than 50% of affected areas. Five patients had complete regrowth of hair on the scalp, eyebrows, and body during treatment. Others had incomplete responses. For instance, one patient had improved growth of eyelashes and eyebrows but not on the scalp. Once the medication was increased to 15 mg daily, the patient had complete regrowth of body hair, eyelashes, and eyebrows but slow regrowth on the scalp after 1 year of treatment.

“Patients are very happy with regrowth of their hair,” Dr. Dunnick said, noting that severe AA affects self-esteem and quality of life.
 

Other research

In a retrospective study that looked at the effects of oral tofacitinib given to 14 preadolescent patients with AA, 9 experienced “clinically significant improvement” in their Severity of Alopecia Tool score. Three had complete remission, and seven (63.6%) had more than a 50% improvement in the score.

Mechanisms, concerns

The researchers of the current study explained that interferon signaling activity through the JAK pathways is a key mediator of the inflammation and cytotoxic T-cell response in AA. That modulation of the signaling may decrease disease progression, as the results of the current chart review suggest.

A main concern, the researchers wrote, is the potential for significant adverse events. Although this chart review did not find any, the researchers did see some transient lab abnormalities. One study found lab abnormalities in such measures as triglycerides and cholesterol.

Asked to comment on the study results, Brett King, MD, PHD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that the study “is an important addition to a series of articles dating back to 2017 showing efficacy of tofacitinib in the pediatric age group.” The results are similar to those of previous studies, “showing that severe AA can be treated effectively with tofacitinib. Cumulatively, there is significant data to support treatment of this age group with JAK inhibitors,” he said.

At the 2021 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting, Dr. King presented the results of two phase 3 studies, which found that treatment with the oral JAK inhibitor baricitinib resulted in substantial hair growth in adults with AA. He and colleagues have also reported positive results of tofacitinib in treating AA in four children ages 8-10, with alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, and in adolescents with AA.

Currently, three large, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials of other JAK inhibitors for AA are underway – ritlecitinib, baricitinib, and ruxolitinib – and the ritlecitinib trial includes adolescents (ages 12 years and older). “It is the results of these trials that we eagerly await, because FDA approval will bring greater access to these treatments,” Dr. King said.

Dr. Dunnick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. King has served on advisory boards and/or is a consultant and/or a clinical trial investigator for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, and others. He is on speaker bureaus for AbbVie, Incyte, Pfizer, and others.

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

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz), a Janus kinase inhibitor, helped regrow hair in three-quarters of pediatric patients with alopecia areata (AA) in a small study conducted at the University of Colorado and published in Pediatric Dermatology.

The 11 pediatric patients, ages 8-18 years, all with a diagnosis of AA, were treated with tofacitinib. Eight patients, or nearly 73%, experienced hair regrowth, while the other three (27.3%) did not, as the investigators reported in the retrospective chart review.

“A success rate of 73% is very good,” said lead author Cory A. Dunnick, MD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. No serious adverse events occurred, and adverse events of any kind were limited, the researchers found.

“It is important to get information into the literature about potential treatments for severe alopecia areata because there is no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapy at the present time,” Dr. Dunnick told this news organization. Patients’ insurance plans often deny non–FDA-approved therapies unless there are data to support their use.

The researchers found no correlation between the dose, duration of treatment, or the presence of comorbidities and clinical response.

Oral tofacitinib has been shown to be effective and well tolerated for AA in adults, the researchers said. They referred to recent studies that have used JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib, “in an effort to inhibit T-cell activation and halt disease progression in adult and pediatric patients” with AA.
 

Study details

Of the 11 patients evaluated, 6 had alopecia universalis, 1 had alopecia totalis, and 4 had patchy AA. Concomitant medical conditions known to be associated with AA affected four patients. These included atopic dermatitis, autoimmune hypothyroidism, and asthma. One patient reported having two brothers with AA.

The median disease duration was 6 years. “In my experience, JAK inhibitors are less effective for patients with longstanding – more than 10 years – alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis,” Dr. Dunnick said.

Previously, patients had been given methotrexate, oral prednisone, intralesional triamcinolone, topical corticosteroids, and topical diphenylcyclopropenone. During treatment with tofacitinib, 5 of the 11 patients also received topical steroid treatment.

The study was a retrospective chart review, so dosing was not standardized, the researchers said. Most took 5-10 mg twice daily. Median treatment time was 32 months, with a range of 5-39 months.

Patients with a complete or near complete clinical response were categorized as responders; subjectively, these were the patients who had persistent hair regrowth over more than 50% of affected areas. Five patients had complete regrowth of hair on the scalp, eyebrows, and body during treatment. Others had incomplete responses. For instance, one patient had improved growth of eyelashes and eyebrows but not on the scalp. Once the medication was increased to 15 mg daily, the patient had complete regrowth of body hair, eyelashes, and eyebrows but slow regrowth on the scalp after 1 year of treatment.

“Patients are very happy with regrowth of their hair,” Dr. Dunnick said, noting that severe AA affects self-esteem and quality of life.
 

Other research

In a retrospective study that looked at the effects of oral tofacitinib given to 14 preadolescent patients with AA, 9 experienced “clinically significant improvement” in their Severity of Alopecia Tool score. Three had complete remission, and seven (63.6%) had more than a 50% improvement in the score.

Mechanisms, concerns

The researchers of the current study explained that interferon signaling activity through the JAK pathways is a key mediator of the inflammation and cytotoxic T-cell response in AA. That modulation of the signaling may decrease disease progression, as the results of the current chart review suggest.

A main concern, the researchers wrote, is the potential for significant adverse events. Although this chart review did not find any, the researchers did see some transient lab abnormalities. One study found lab abnormalities in such measures as triglycerides and cholesterol.

Asked to comment on the study results, Brett King, MD, PHD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that the study “is an important addition to a series of articles dating back to 2017 showing efficacy of tofacitinib in the pediatric age group.” The results are similar to those of previous studies, “showing that severe AA can be treated effectively with tofacitinib. Cumulatively, there is significant data to support treatment of this age group with JAK inhibitors,” he said.

At the 2021 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting, Dr. King presented the results of two phase 3 studies, which found that treatment with the oral JAK inhibitor baricitinib resulted in substantial hair growth in adults with AA. He and colleagues have also reported positive results of tofacitinib in treating AA in four children ages 8-10, with alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, and in adolescents with AA.

Currently, three large, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials of other JAK inhibitors for AA are underway – ritlecitinib, baricitinib, and ruxolitinib – and the ritlecitinib trial includes adolescents (ages 12 years and older). “It is the results of these trials that we eagerly await, because FDA approval will bring greater access to these treatments,” Dr. King said.

Dr. Dunnick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. King has served on advisory boards and/or is a consultant and/or a clinical trial investigator for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, and others. He is on speaker bureaus for AbbVie, Incyte, Pfizer, and others.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.

But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”

Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.

Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.

“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.

Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.

“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”

Chronic urticaria develops in 20%-45% of patients who present with acute urticaria. One form of chronic urticaria is inducible urticaria, which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”

The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.

About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.

According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”

That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”

According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.

Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”

In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.

As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.

Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”

Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.

A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”

A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.

Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.

“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.

In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.

But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”

Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.

Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.

“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.

Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.

“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”

Chronic urticaria develops in 20%-45% of patients who present with acute urticaria. One form of chronic urticaria is inducible urticaria, which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”

The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.

About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.

According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”

That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”

According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.

Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”

In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.

As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.

Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”

Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.

A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”

A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.

Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.

“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.

In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.

But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”

Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.

Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.

“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.

Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.

“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”

Chronic urticaria develops in 20%-45% of patients who present with acute urticaria. One form of chronic urticaria is inducible urticaria, which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”

The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.

About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.

According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”

That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”

According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.

Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”

In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.

As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.

Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”

Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.

A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”

A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.

Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.

“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

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

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

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

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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