Dermatology News

Women had about a twofold higher risk than that of men of developing dermatologic adverse events while taking immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic melanoma in a review of 235 patients at Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston.
 

Overall, 62.4% of the 93 women in the review and 48.6% of the 142 men experienced confirmed skin reactions, for an odds ratio (OR) of 2.11 for women compared with men (P = .01).

“Clinicians should consider these results in counseling female patients regarding an elevated risk of dermatologic adverse events” when taking checkpoint inhibitors, said investigators led by Harvard University medical student Jordan Said, who presented the results at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Autoimmune-like adverse events are common with checkpoint inhibitors. Dermatologic side effects occur in about half of people receiving monotherapy and more than that among patients receiving combination therapy.

Skin reactions can include psoriasiform dermatitis, lichenoid reactions, vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid and may require hospitalization and prolonged steroid treatment.

Not much is known about risk factors for these reactions. A higher incidence among women has been previously reported. A 2019 study found a higher risk for pneumonitis and endocrinopathy, including hypophysitis, among women who underwent treatment for non–small cell lung cancer or metastatic melanoma.

The 2019 study found that the risk was higher among premenopausal women than postmenopausal women, which led some to suggest that estrogen may play a role.

The results of the Dana Farber review argue against that notion. In their review, the investigators found that the risk was similarly elevated among the 27 premenopausal women (OR, 1.97; P = .40) and the 66 postmenopausal women (OR, 2.17, P = .05). In the study, women who were aged 52 years or older at the start of treatment were considered to be postmenopausal.

“This suggests that factors beyond sex hormones are likely contributory” to the difference in risk between men and women. It’s known that women are at higher risk for autoimmune disease overall, which might be related to the increased odds of autoimmune-like reactions, and it may be that sex-related differences in innate and adoptive immunity are at work, Mr. Said noted.

When asked for comment, Douglas Johnson, MD, assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that although some studies have reported a greater risk for side effects among women, others have not. “Additional research is needed to determine the interactions between sex and effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as many other possible triggers of immune-related adverse events,” he said.

“Continued work in this area will be so important to help determine how to best counsel women and to ensure early recognition and intervention for dermatologic side effects,” said Bernice Kwong, MD, director of the Supportive Dermato-Oncology Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The patients in the review were treated from 2011 to 2016 and underwent at least monthly evaluations by their medical teams. They were taking either nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab or a nivolumab/ipilimumab combination.

The median age of the men in the study was 65 years; the median age of women was 60 years. Almost 98% of the participants were White. The majority received one to three infusions, most commonly with pembrolizumab monotherapy.

No funding for the study was reported. Mr. Said has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women had about a twofold higher risk than that of men of developing dermatologic adverse events while taking immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic melanoma in a review of 235 patients at Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston.
 

Overall, 62.4% of the 93 women in the review and 48.6% of the 142 men experienced confirmed skin reactions, for an odds ratio (OR) of 2.11 for women compared with men (P = .01).

“Clinicians should consider these results in counseling female patients regarding an elevated risk of dermatologic adverse events” when taking checkpoint inhibitors, said investigators led by Harvard University medical student Jordan Said, who presented the results at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Autoimmune-like adverse events are common with checkpoint inhibitors. Dermatologic side effects occur in about half of people receiving monotherapy and more than that among patients receiving combination therapy.

Skin reactions can include psoriasiform dermatitis, lichenoid reactions, vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid and may require hospitalization and prolonged steroid treatment.

Not much is known about risk factors for these reactions. A higher incidence among women has been previously reported. A 2019 study found a higher risk for pneumonitis and endocrinopathy, including hypophysitis, among women who underwent treatment for non–small cell lung cancer or metastatic melanoma.

The 2019 study found that the risk was higher among premenopausal women than postmenopausal women, which led some to suggest that estrogen may play a role.

The results of the Dana Farber review argue against that notion. In their review, the investigators found that the risk was similarly elevated among the 27 premenopausal women (OR, 1.97; P = .40) and the 66 postmenopausal women (OR, 2.17, P = .05). In the study, women who were aged 52 years or older at the start of treatment were considered to be postmenopausal.

“This suggests that factors beyond sex hormones are likely contributory” to the difference in risk between men and women. It’s known that women are at higher risk for autoimmune disease overall, which might be related to the increased odds of autoimmune-like reactions, and it may be that sex-related differences in innate and adoptive immunity are at work, Mr. Said noted.

When asked for comment, Douglas Johnson, MD, assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that although some studies have reported a greater risk for side effects among women, others have not. “Additional research is needed to determine the interactions between sex and effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as many other possible triggers of immune-related adverse events,” he said.

“Continued work in this area will be so important to help determine how to best counsel women and to ensure early recognition and intervention for dermatologic side effects,” said Bernice Kwong, MD, director of the Supportive Dermato-Oncology Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The patients in the review were treated from 2011 to 2016 and underwent at least monthly evaluations by their medical teams. They were taking either nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab or a nivolumab/ipilimumab combination.

The median age of the men in the study was 65 years; the median age of women was 60 years. Almost 98% of the participants were White. The majority received one to three infusions, most commonly with pembrolizumab monotherapy.

No funding for the study was reported. Mr. Said has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women had about a twofold higher risk than that of men of developing dermatologic adverse events while taking immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic melanoma in a review of 235 patients at Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston.
 

Overall, 62.4% of the 93 women in the review and 48.6% of the 142 men experienced confirmed skin reactions, for an odds ratio (OR) of 2.11 for women compared with men (P = .01).

“Clinicians should consider these results in counseling female patients regarding an elevated risk of dermatologic adverse events” when taking checkpoint inhibitors, said investigators led by Harvard University medical student Jordan Said, who presented the results at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Autoimmune-like adverse events are common with checkpoint inhibitors. Dermatologic side effects occur in about half of people receiving monotherapy and more than that among patients receiving combination therapy.

Skin reactions can include psoriasiform dermatitis, lichenoid reactions, vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid and may require hospitalization and prolonged steroid treatment.

Not much is known about risk factors for these reactions. A higher incidence among women has been previously reported. A 2019 study found a higher risk for pneumonitis and endocrinopathy, including hypophysitis, among women who underwent treatment for non–small cell lung cancer or metastatic melanoma.

The 2019 study found that the risk was higher among premenopausal women than postmenopausal women, which led some to suggest that estrogen may play a role.

The results of the Dana Farber review argue against that notion. In their review, the investigators found that the risk was similarly elevated among the 27 premenopausal women (OR, 1.97; P = .40) and the 66 postmenopausal women (OR, 2.17, P = .05). In the study, women who were aged 52 years or older at the start of treatment were considered to be postmenopausal.

“This suggests that factors beyond sex hormones are likely contributory” to the difference in risk between men and women. It’s known that women are at higher risk for autoimmune disease overall, which might be related to the increased odds of autoimmune-like reactions, and it may be that sex-related differences in innate and adoptive immunity are at work, Mr. Said noted.

When asked for comment, Douglas Johnson, MD, assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that although some studies have reported a greater risk for side effects among women, others have not. “Additional research is needed to determine the interactions between sex and effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as many other possible triggers of immune-related adverse events,” he said.

“Continued work in this area will be so important to help determine how to best counsel women and to ensure early recognition and intervention for dermatologic side effects,” said Bernice Kwong, MD, director of the Supportive Dermato-Oncology Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The patients in the review were treated from 2011 to 2016 and underwent at least monthly evaluations by their medical teams. They were taking either nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab or a nivolumab/ipilimumab combination.

The median age of the men in the study was 65 years; the median age of women was 60 years. Almost 98% of the participants were White. The majority received one to three infusions, most commonly with pembrolizumab monotherapy.

No funding for the study was reported. Mr. Said has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing pemphigus vulgaris, an update of the phase 2 BELIEVE study with the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor rilzabrutinib has raised hopes that the ongoing phase 3 trial will confirm that this drug is a breakthrough therapy, according to an investigator who presented the data at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Among the highlights of the phase 2 data presented during a late-breaking research session was that a substantial minority of patients achieved a complete response within 12 weeks of starting treatment with rilzabrutinib. Treatment was associated with mostly mild and transient adverse events, according to Dedee F. Murrell, MD, director of dermatology, St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Many of the phase 2 results have been presented previously and the phase 3 trial, called PEGASUS, has now completed enrollment.

Focusing on part A of the BELIEVE study, Dr. Murrell reported that about one-third of the 27 patients enrolled had newly diagnosed pemphigus. The remaining patients had relapsing disease after a mean 8.9 years after diagnosis. The disease was judged moderate to severe in 59%. The daily oral dose of rilzabrutinib ranged from 400 mg to 600 mg twice daily.

For the primary endpoint of control of disease activity (CDA), meaning no formation of new lesions with diminishing activity of existing lesions, 52% had responded by week 4 and 70% had responded by week 12, which was the end of active treatment. Responses at both time points were comparable among patients with newly diagnosed disease (56% at week 4 and 67% at week 12) relapsing disease (50% and 72%, respectively), moderate disease severity at baseline (55% and 64%, respectively) and more severe disease (50% and 75%, respectively), Dr. Murrell noted.

“A complete response was achieved by 22% of patients at week 4 and nearly 30% by the end of the study,” she said.

These response rates were reflected in the Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) and the Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life (ABQOL) Score. From a baseline score of 20, the PDAI fell to 10 at 4 weeks and then to 6 at 12 weeks in the newly diagnosed cohort. In the relapsing cohort, the score fell from a baseline of 18 to 13 at week 4 and then to 7 at week 12.

“The improvement corresponded to a reduction in steroid doses,” Dr. Murrell reported. By the end of the study, the mean daily dose of corticosteroids fell to 10 mg from a baseline of 20 mg. In a 12-week follow-up, corticosteroid doses rose slowly and did not reach baseline levels until about eight weeks after rilzabrutinib was discontinued.

The ABQOL scores fell most rapidly in the newly diagnosed cohort. By week 12, there was about a 6.6-point reduction. In the relapsing group, the score fell by 3.7 points from a similar baseline level. Both reductions are considered highly clinically meaningful, according to Dr. Murrell. At the end of the 12 weeks of follow-up after the drug was discontinued, ABQOL scores had increased but remained below the baseline.

Nausea was reported by 15% of patients, making it the most commonly reported adverse event. All cases were grade 1 severity. Three patients had grade 2 abdominal pain. The only grade 3 event in this series was a case of cellulitis in a patient who had developed steroid-induced diabetes mellitus. With treatment, the cellulitis resolved, and the patient completed the study.

Data from part B of the BELIEVE study, which was similarly designed and enrolled 15 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing pemphigus vulgaris, was not updated by Dr. Murrell at the meeting, but these data have been presented before and showed similar results, including achievement of CDA in the majority of patients accompanied by a reduction in corticosteroid doses.

“In summary, rilzabrutinib produced a rapid clinical effect with an overall favorable benefit-to-risk profile,” said Dr. Murrell, who reiterated that the improvement in quality of life underscored meaningful activity.

Three BTK inhibitors, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, have been approved for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. These have also been well tolerated. The shared mechanism of action of these drugs is a reduction in B-cell activity achieved by blocking BTK enzyme signaling. The autoimmune activity of pemphigus vulgaris is at least partially mediated by B cells.

“Rilzabrutinib is the first BTK inhibitor tried in pemphigus,” said Dr. Murrell, who cited evidence that pemphigus is at least partially mediated by B-cell activity. The proof-of-concept phase 2 study has increased expectations for the phase 3 PEGASUS trial, which is scheduled for completion in about 1 year, she said.

Dr. Murrell reports financial relationship with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Principia Biopharma, a Sanofi subsidiary that is developing rilzabrutinib and sponsored the BELIEVE trial.


 

In patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing pemphigus vulgaris, an update of the phase 2 BELIEVE study with the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor rilzabrutinib has raised hopes that the ongoing phase 3 trial will confirm that this drug is a breakthrough therapy, according to an investigator who presented the data at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Among the highlights of the phase 2 data presented during a late-breaking research session was that a substantial minority of patients achieved a complete response within 12 weeks of starting treatment with rilzabrutinib. Treatment was associated with mostly mild and transient adverse events, according to Dedee F. Murrell, MD, director of dermatology, St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Many of the phase 2 results have been presented previously and the phase 3 trial, called PEGASUS, has now completed enrollment.

Focusing on part A of the BELIEVE study, Dr. Murrell reported that about one-third of the 27 patients enrolled had newly diagnosed pemphigus. The remaining patients had relapsing disease after a mean 8.9 years after diagnosis. The disease was judged moderate to severe in 59%. The daily oral dose of rilzabrutinib ranged from 400 mg to 600 mg twice daily.

For the primary endpoint of control of disease activity (CDA), meaning no formation of new lesions with diminishing activity of existing lesions, 52% had responded by week 4 and 70% had responded by week 12, which was the end of active treatment. Responses at both time points were comparable among patients with newly diagnosed disease (56% at week 4 and 67% at week 12) relapsing disease (50% and 72%, respectively), moderate disease severity at baseline (55% and 64%, respectively) and more severe disease (50% and 75%, respectively), Dr. Murrell noted.

“A complete response was achieved by 22% of patients at week 4 and nearly 30% by the end of the study,” she said.

These response rates were reflected in the Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) and the Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life (ABQOL) Score. From a baseline score of 20, the PDAI fell to 10 at 4 weeks and then to 6 at 12 weeks in the newly diagnosed cohort. In the relapsing cohort, the score fell from a baseline of 18 to 13 at week 4 and then to 7 at week 12.

“The improvement corresponded to a reduction in steroid doses,” Dr. Murrell reported. By the end of the study, the mean daily dose of corticosteroids fell to 10 mg from a baseline of 20 mg. In a 12-week follow-up, corticosteroid doses rose slowly and did not reach baseline levels until about eight weeks after rilzabrutinib was discontinued.

The ABQOL scores fell most rapidly in the newly diagnosed cohort. By week 12, there was about a 6.6-point reduction. In the relapsing group, the score fell by 3.7 points from a similar baseline level. Both reductions are considered highly clinically meaningful, according to Dr. Murrell. At the end of the 12 weeks of follow-up after the drug was discontinued, ABQOL scores had increased but remained below the baseline.

Nausea was reported by 15% of patients, making it the most commonly reported adverse event. All cases were grade 1 severity. Three patients had grade 2 abdominal pain. The only grade 3 event in this series was a case of cellulitis in a patient who had developed steroid-induced diabetes mellitus. With treatment, the cellulitis resolved, and the patient completed the study.

Data from part B of the BELIEVE study, which was similarly designed and enrolled 15 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing pemphigus vulgaris, was not updated by Dr. Murrell at the meeting, but these data have been presented before and showed similar results, including achievement of CDA in the majority of patients accompanied by a reduction in corticosteroid doses.

“In summary, rilzabrutinib produced a rapid clinical effect with an overall favorable benefit-to-risk profile,” said Dr. Murrell, who reiterated that the improvement in quality of life underscored meaningful activity.

Three BTK inhibitors, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, have been approved for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. These have also been well tolerated. The shared mechanism of action of these drugs is a reduction in B-cell activity achieved by blocking BTK enzyme signaling. The autoimmune activity of pemphigus vulgaris is at least partially mediated by B cells.

“Rilzabrutinib is the first BTK inhibitor tried in pemphigus,” said Dr. Murrell, who cited evidence that pemphigus is at least partially mediated by B-cell activity. The proof-of-concept phase 2 study has increased expectations for the phase 3 PEGASUS trial, which is scheduled for completion in about 1 year, she said.

Dr. Murrell reports financial relationship with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Principia Biopharma, a Sanofi subsidiary that is developing rilzabrutinib and sponsored the BELIEVE trial.


 

In patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing pemphigus vulgaris, an update of the phase 2 BELIEVE study with the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor rilzabrutinib has raised hopes that the ongoing phase 3 trial will confirm that this drug is a breakthrough therapy, according to an investigator who presented the data at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Among the highlights of the phase 2 data presented during a late-breaking research session was that a substantial minority of patients achieved a complete response within 12 weeks of starting treatment with rilzabrutinib. Treatment was associated with mostly mild and transient adverse events, according to Dedee F. Murrell, MD, director of dermatology, St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Many of the phase 2 results have been presented previously and the phase 3 trial, called PEGASUS, has now completed enrollment.

Focusing on part A of the BELIEVE study, Dr. Murrell reported that about one-third of the 27 patients enrolled had newly diagnosed pemphigus. The remaining patients had relapsing disease after a mean 8.9 years after diagnosis. The disease was judged moderate to severe in 59%. The daily oral dose of rilzabrutinib ranged from 400 mg to 600 mg twice daily.

For the primary endpoint of control of disease activity (CDA), meaning no formation of new lesions with diminishing activity of existing lesions, 52% had responded by week 4 and 70% had responded by week 12, which was the end of active treatment. Responses at both time points were comparable among patients with newly diagnosed disease (56% at week 4 and 67% at week 12) relapsing disease (50% and 72%, respectively), moderate disease severity at baseline (55% and 64%, respectively) and more severe disease (50% and 75%, respectively), Dr. Murrell noted.

“A complete response was achieved by 22% of patients at week 4 and nearly 30% by the end of the study,” she said.

These response rates were reflected in the Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) and the Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life (ABQOL) Score. From a baseline score of 20, the PDAI fell to 10 at 4 weeks and then to 6 at 12 weeks in the newly diagnosed cohort. In the relapsing cohort, the score fell from a baseline of 18 to 13 at week 4 and then to 7 at week 12.

“The improvement corresponded to a reduction in steroid doses,” Dr. Murrell reported. By the end of the study, the mean daily dose of corticosteroids fell to 10 mg from a baseline of 20 mg. In a 12-week follow-up, corticosteroid doses rose slowly and did not reach baseline levels until about eight weeks after rilzabrutinib was discontinued.

The ABQOL scores fell most rapidly in the newly diagnosed cohort. By week 12, there was about a 6.6-point reduction. In the relapsing group, the score fell by 3.7 points from a similar baseline level. Both reductions are considered highly clinically meaningful, according to Dr. Murrell. At the end of the 12 weeks of follow-up after the drug was discontinued, ABQOL scores had increased but remained below the baseline.

Nausea was reported by 15% of patients, making it the most commonly reported adverse event. All cases were grade 1 severity. Three patients had grade 2 abdominal pain. The only grade 3 event in this series was a case of cellulitis in a patient who had developed steroid-induced diabetes mellitus. With treatment, the cellulitis resolved, and the patient completed the study.

Data from part B of the BELIEVE study, which was similarly designed and enrolled 15 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing pemphigus vulgaris, was not updated by Dr. Murrell at the meeting, but these data have been presented before and showed similar results, including achievement of CDA in the majority of patients accompanied by a reduction in corticosteroid doses.

“In summary, rilzabrutinib produced a rapid clinical effect with an overall favorable benefit-to-risk profile,” said Dr. Murrell, who reiterated that the improvement in quality of life underscored meaningful activity.

Three BTK inhibitors, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, have been approved for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. These have also been well tolerated. The shared mechanism of action of these drugs is a reduction in B-cell activity achieved by blocking BTK enzyme signaling. The autoimmune activity of pemphigus vulgaris is at least partially mediated by B cells.

“Rilzabrutinib is the first BTK inhibitor tried in pemphigus,” said Dr. Murrell, who cited evidence that pemphigus is at least partially mediated by B-cell activity. The proof-of-concept phase 2 study has increased expectations for the phase 3 PEGASUS trial, which is scheduled for completion in about 1 year, she said.

Dr. Murrell reports financial relationship with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Principia Biopharma, a Sanofi subsidiary that is developing rilzabrutinib and sponsored the BELIEVE trial.


 

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

Bringing pharmacists, allergists, and dermatologists together to discuss patient care can improve outcomes for children with atopic dermatitis, researchers say.

“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.

Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.

The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.

“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.

He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.

To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.

• Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
• In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
• Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
• Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
• Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.

The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.

Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”

In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.

Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.

Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”

Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.

However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”

Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.

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

Bringing pharmacists, allergists, and dermatologists together to discuss patient care can improve outcomes for children with atopic dermatitis, researchers say.

“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.

Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.

The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.

“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.

He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.

To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.

• Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
• In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
• Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
• Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
• Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.

The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.

Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”

In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.

Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.

Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”

Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.

However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”

Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.

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

Bringing pharmacists, allergists, and dermatologists together to discuss patient care can improve outcomes for children with atopic dermatitis, researchers say.

“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.

Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.

The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.

“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.

He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.

To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.

• Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
• In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
• Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
• Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
• Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.

The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.

Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”

In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.

Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.

Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”

Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.

However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”

Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.

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

In the analysis of images for detecting potential pathology, artificial intelligence (AI) is showing enormous promise across multiple fields of medicine. But the technology in dermatology is bound to fail in skin of color if training does not specifically address these skin types, according to Adewole S. Adamson, MD, who outlined this issue at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“Machine learning algorithms are only as good as the inputs through which they learn. Without representation from individuals with skin of color, we are at risk of creating a new source of racial disparity in patient care,” Dr. Adamson, assistant professor in the division of dermatology, department of internal medicine, University of Texas at Austin, said at the meeting.

Diagnostic algorithms using AI are typically based on deep learning, a subset of machine learning that depends on artificial neural networks. In the case of image processing, neural networks can “learn” to recognize objects, faces, or, in the realm of health care, disease, from exposure to multiple images.

There are many other variables that affect the accuracy of deep learning for diagnostic algorithms, including the depth of the layering through which the process distills multiple inputs of information, but the number of inputs is critical. In the case of skin lesions, machines cannot learn to recognize features of different skin types without exposure.

“There are studies demonstrating that dermatologists can be outperformed for detection of skin cancers by AI, so this is going to be an increasingly powerful tool,” Dr. Adamson said. The problem is that “there has been very little representation in darker skin types” in the algorithms developed so far.

The risk is that AI will exacerbate an existing problem. Skin cancer in darker skin is less common but already underdiagnosed, independent of AI. Per 100,000 males in the United States, the rate of melanoma is about 30-fold greater in White men than in Black men (33.0 vs. 1.0). Among females, the racial difference is smaller but still enormous (20.2 vs. 1.2 per 100,000 females), according to U.S. data.

For the low representation of darker skin in studies so far with AI, “one of the arguments is that skin cancer is not a big deal in darker skin types,” Dr. Adamson said.

It might be the other way around. The relative infrequency with which skin cancer occurs in the Black population in the United States might explain a low level of suspicion and ultimately delays in diagnosis, which, in turn, leads to worse outcomes. According to one analysis drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Result (SEER) database (1998-2011), the proportion of patients with regionally advanced or distant disease was nearly twice as great (11.6% vs. 6.0%; P < .05) in Black patients, relative to White patients.

Not surprisingly, given the importance of early diagnosis of cancers overall and skin cancer specifically, the mean survival for malignant melanoma in Black patients was almost 4 years lower than in White patients (10.8 vs. 14.6 years; P < .001) for nodular melanoma, the same study found.

In humans, bias is reasonably attributed in many cases to judgments made on a small sample size. The problem in AI is analogous. Dr. Adamson, who has published research on the potential for machine learning to contribute to health care disparities in dermatology, cited work done by Joy Buolamwini, a graduate researcher in the media lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In one study she conducted, the rate of AI facial recognition failure was 1% in White males, 7% in White females, 12% in skin-of-color males, and 35% in skin-of-color females. Fewer inputs of skin of color is the likely explanation, Dr. Adamson said.

The potential for racial bias from AI in the diagnosis of disease increases and becomes more complex when inputs beyond imaging, such as past medical history, are included. Dr. Adamson warned of the potential for “bias to creep in” when there is failure to account for societal, cultural, or other differences that distinguish one patient group from another. However, for skin cancer or other diseases based on images alone, he said there are solutions.

“We are in the early days, and there is time to change this,” Dr. Adamson said, referring to the low representation of skin of color in AI training sets. In addition to including more skin types to train recognition, creating AI algorithms specifically for dark skin is another potential approach.

However, his key point was the importance of recognizing the need for solutions.

“AI is the future, but we must apply the same rigor to AI as to other medical interventions to ensure that the technology is not applied in a biased fashion,” he said.

Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion and melanoma program at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, agreed. As someone who has been following the progress of AI in the diagnosis of skin cancer, Dr. Swetter recognizes the potential for this technology to increase diagnostic efficiency and accuracy, but she also called for studies specific to skin of color.

In the analysis of images for detecting potential pathology, artificial intelligence (AI) is showing enormous promise across multiple fields of medicine. But the technology in dermatology is bound to fail in skin of color if training does not specifically address these skin types, according to Adewole S. Adamson, MD, who outlined this issue at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“Machine learning algorithms are only as good as the inputs through which they learn. Without representation from individuals with skin of color, we are at risk of creating a new source of racial disparity in patient care,” Dr. Adamson, assistant professor in the division of dermatology, department of internal medicine, University of Texas at Austin, said at the meeting.

Diagnostic algorithms using AI are typically based on deep learning, a subset of machine learning that depends on artificial neural networks. In the case of image processing, neural networks can “learn” to recognize objects, faces, or, in the realm of health care, disease, from exposure to multiple images.

There are many other variables that affect the accuracy of deep learning for diagnostic algorithms, including the depth of the layering through which the process distills multiple inputs of information, but the number of inputs is critical. In the case of skin lesions, machines cannot learn to recognize features of different skin types without exposure.

“There are studies demonstrating that dermatologists can be outperformed for detection of skin cancers by AI, so this is going to be an increasingly powerful tool,” Dr. Adamson said. The problem is that “there has been very little representation in darker skin types” in the algorithms developed so far.

The risk is that AI will exacerbate an existing problem. Skin cancer in darker skin is less common but already underdiagnosed, independent of AI. Per 100,000 males in the United States, the rate of melanoma is about 30-fold greater in White men than in Black men (33.0 vs. 1.0). Among females, the racial difference is smaller but still enormous (20.2 vs. 1.2 per 100,000 females), according to U.S. data.

For the low representation of darker skin in studies so far with AI, “one of the arguments is that skin cancer is not a big deal in darker skin types,” Dr. Adamson said.

It might be the other way around. The relative infrequency with which skin cancer occurs in the Black population in the United States might explain a low level of suspicion and ultimately delays in diagnosis, which, in turn, leads to worse outcomes. According to one analysis drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Result (SEER) database (1998-2011), the proportion of patients with regionally advanced or distant disease was nearly twice as great (11.6% vs. 6.0%; P < .05) in Black patients, relative to White patients.

Not surprisingly, given the importance of early diagnosis of cancers overall and skin cancer specifically, the mean survival for malignant melanoma in Black patients was almost 4 years lower than in White patients (10.8 vs. 14.6 years; P < .001) for nodular melanoma, the same study found.

In humans, bias is reasonably attributed in many cases to judgments made on a small sample size. The problem in AI is analogous. Dr. Adamson, who has published research on the potential for machine learning to contribute to health care disparities in dermatology, cited work done by Joy Buolamwini, a graduate researcher in the media lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In one study she conducted, the rate of AI facial recognition failure was 1% in White males, 7% in White females, 12% in skin-of-color males, and 35% in skin-of-color females. Fewer inputs of skin of color is the likely explanation, Dr. Adamson said.

The potential for racial bias from AI in the diagnosis of disease increases and becomes more complex when inputs beyond imaging, such as past medical history, are included. Dr. Adamson warned of the potential for “bias to creep in” when there is failure to account for societal, cultural, or other differences that distinguish one patient group from another. However, for skin cancer or other diseases based on images alone, he said there are solutions.

“We are in the early days, and there is time to change this,” Dr. Adamson said, referring to the low representation of skin of color in AI training sets. In addition to including more skin types to train recognition, creating AI algorithms specifically for dark skin is another potential approach.

However, his key point was the importance of recognizing the need for solutions.

“AI is the future, but we must apply the same rigor to AI as to other medical interventions to ensure that the technology is not applied in a biased fashion,” he said.

Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion and melanoma program at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, agreed. As someone who has been following the progress of AI in the diagnosis of skin cancer, Dr. Swetter recognizes the potential for this technology to increase diagnostic efficiency and accuracy, but she also called for studies specific to skin of color.

In the analysis of images for detecting potential pathology, artificial intelligence (AI) is showing enormous promise across multiple fields of medicine. But the technology in dermatology is bound to fail in skin of color if training does not specifically address these skin types, according to Adewole S. Adamson, MD, who outlined this issue at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“Machine learning algorithms are only as good as the inputs through which they learn. Without representation from individuals with skin of color, we are at risk of creating a new source of racial disparity in patient care,” Dr. Adamson, assistant professor in the division of dermatology, department of internal medicine, University of Texas at Austin, said at the meeting.

Diagnostic algorithms using AI are typically based on deep learning, a subset of machine learning that depends on artificial neural networks. In the case of image processing, neural networks can “learn” to recognize objects, faces, or, in the realm of health care, disease, from exposure to multiple images.

There are many other variables that affect the accuracy of deep learning for diagnostic algorithms, including the depth of the layering through which the process distills multiple inputs of information, but the number of inputs is critical. In the case of skin lesions, machines cannot learn to recognize features of different skin types without exposure.

“There are studies demonstrating that dermatologists can be outperformed for detection of skin cancers by AI, so this is going to be an increasingly powerful tool,” Dr. Adamson said. The problem is that “there has been very little representation in darker skin types” in the algorithms developed so far.

The risk is that AI will exacerbate an existing problem. Skin cancer in darker skin is less common but already underdiagnosed, independent of AI. Per 100,000 males in the United States, the rate of melanoma is about 30-fold greater in White men than in Black men (33.0 vs. 1.0). Among females, the racial difference is smaller but still enormous (20.2 vs. 1.2 per 100,000 females), according to U.S. data.

For the low representation of darker skin in studies so far with AI, “one of the arguments is that skin cancer is not a big deal in darker skin types,” Dr. Adamson said.

It might be the other way around. The relative infrequency with which skin cancer occurs in the Black population in the United States might explain a low level of suspicion and ultimately delays in diagnosis, which, in turn, leads to worse outcomes. According to one analysis drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Result (SEER) database (1998-2011), the proportion of patients with regionally advanced or distant disease was nearly twice as great (11.6% vs. 6.0%; P < .05) in Black patients, relative to White patients.

Not surprisingly, given the importance of early diagnosis of cancers overall and skin cancer specifically, the mean survival for malignant melanoma in Black patients was almost 4 years lower than in White patients (10.8 vs. 14.6 years; P < .001) for nodular melanoma, the same study found.

In humans, bias is reasonably attributed in many cases to judgments made on a small sample size. The problem in AI is analogous. Dr. Adamson, who has published research on the potential for machine learning to contribute to health care disparities in dermatology, cited work done by Joy Buolamwini, a graduate researcher in the media lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In one study she conducted, the rate of AI facial recognition failure was 1% in White males, 7% in White females, 12% in skin-of-color males, and 35% in skin-of-color females. Fewer inputs of skin of color is the likely explanation, Dr. Adamson said.

The potential for racial bias from AI in the diagnosis of disease increases and becomes more complex when inputs beyond imaging, such as past medical history, are included. Dr. Adamson warned of the potential for “bias to creep in” when there is failure to account for societal, cultural, or other differences that distinguish one patient group from another. However, for skin cancer or other diseases based on images alone, he said there are solutions.

“We are in the early days, and there is time to change this,” Dr. Adamson said, referring to the low representation of skin of color in AI training sets. In addition to including more skin types to train recognition, creating AI algorithms specifically for dark skin is another potential approach.

However, his key point was the importance of recognizing the need for solutions.

“AI is the future, but we must apply the same rigor to AI as to other medical interventions to ensure that the technology is not applied in a biased fashion,” he said.

Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion and melanoma program at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, agreed. As someone who has been following the progress of AI in the diagnosis of skin cancer, Dr. Swetter recognizes the potential for this technology to increase diagnostic efficiency and accuracy, but she also called for studies specific to skin of color.

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.

The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.

That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.

“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.

“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”

The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
 

Assessing 81 million patients

In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.

Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.

Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.

For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.

“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected. 
 

Rare events

The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.

An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.

An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.

A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.

“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”

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

A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.

The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.

That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.

“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.

“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”

The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
 

Assessing 81 million patients

In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.

Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.

Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.

For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.

“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected. 
 

Rare events

The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.

An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.

An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.

A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.

“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”

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

A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.

The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.

That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.

“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.

“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”

The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
 

Assessing 81 million patients

In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.

Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.

Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.

For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.

“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected. 
 

Rare events

The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.

An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.

An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.

A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.

“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”

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

Dermatologists cautioned colleagues to be aware of special hazards facing the LGBTQ community: A higher risk of skin cancer among gay men, possibly because of excess ultraviolet exposure, and acne in transgender people, who are especially vulnerable to acne because of hormone therapy.

The identities of sexual minorities “have a significant influence on many facets of health,” dermatologist Matthew Mansh, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

In regard to skin cancer, he said, “there seems to be consistently higher rates of skin cancer and certain preventable risk behaviors like indoor tanning among sexual minority men.”

Dr. Mansh, codirector of the high-risk nonmelanoma skin cancer clinic at the University of Minnesota, highlighted a report, published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, that used 2014-2018 U.S. survey data of over 870,000 adults to look at the association between sexual orientation and lifetime prevalence of skin cancer. The investigators found that gay and bisexual men had a higher lifetime prevalence of skin cancer compared with heterosexual men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.50; P = .02; and aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .04; for gay and bisexual men, respectively).

When compared with heterosexual women, risk among bisexual women was lower (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P  = .02), but not among lesbian women (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33; P = .95, respectively).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions, Dr. Mansh said, although there’s been fairly little research in this area. What could explain these differences? Factors such as smoking, age, and alcohol use affect skin cancer risk, he said, but these studies control for those variables. Instead, he noted, it’s useful to look at studies of ultraviolet exposure.

For example, he highlighted a study published in JAMA Dermatology in 2015, which examined 12-month indoor-tanning rates and skin cancer prevalence by sexual orientation, using data from California and national health interview surveys. The study found that compared with heterosexual men, “sexual minority men had higher rates of indoor tanning by roughly three- to sixfold,” said Dr. Mansh, the lead author. “And this was among respondents who were adults over age 18. People between the ages of 18 and 34 years are important from a skin cancer perspective as it’s well established that exposure to tanning beds at a younger age is most associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.”

Sexual minority men were also significantly more likely to report having skin cancer, compared with heterosexual men.

In the study, sexual minority women had about half the odds of engaging in indoor tanning compared with heterosexual women, and were less likely to report having been diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer, he added.

Other studies suggest that gay and bisexual men live in neighborhoods with more indoor tanning salons and that they may spend more time in the sun outside too, he said. Some research suggests motivations for tanning include social pressure and the desire to improve appearance, he added.

Overall, “we may be able to use these data to add more appropriate screening and recommendations for these patients, which are sorely lacking in dermatology,” and to design targeted behavioral interventions, said Dr. Mansh, codirector of the dermatology gender care clinic at the University of Minnesota.

What can dermatologists do now? In an interview, dermatologist Jon Klint Peebles, MD, of the mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, in Largo, Md., suggested that colleagues ask patients questions about indoor tanning frequency, the motivations for tanning, exposure to outdoor ultraviolet radiation, sunscreen use, and use of photoprotective clothing.

Hormone therapy and acne

In a related presentation at the meeting, Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta, said that in transgender people, estrogen therapy can actually reduce sebum production and often improves acne, while testosterone therapy frequently has the opposite effect.

“We’ve seen some pretty tough cases of acne in transmasculine patients in my practice,” said Dr. Yeung, who highlighted a recently published study that tracked 988 transgender patients in Boston who underwent testosterone therapy. Nearly a third were diagnosed with acne, compared with 6% prior to hormone therapy, and those at the highest risk were aged 18-21.

The prevalence of acne was 25% 2 years after initiation of hormone therapy. “Acne remains a very common issue and not just at the beginning of treatment,” he said.

In 2020, Dr. Yeung and colleagues reported the results of a survey of 696 transgender patients in California and Georgia; most were treated with hormone therapy. They found that 14% of transmasculine patients reported currently having moderate to severe acne diagnosed by a physician, compared with 1% of transfeminine patients.

Dr. Yeung noted that another survey of transmasculine persons who had received testosterone found that those who had moderate to severe acne were more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety than were those who had never had acne (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.4; P = .001, for depression; and aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P = .002, for anxiety).

Acne treatments in transmasculine patients are complicated by the fact that hormone treatments for acne can have feminizing effects, Dr. Yeung said, adding that it’s not clear how clascoterone, a new anti-androgen topical therapy for acne, will affect them. For now, many patients will require isotretinoin for treating acne.

Dr. Peebles cautioned that with isotretinoin, “we still do not yet have solid data on the optimal dosing or duration in the context of testosterone-induced acne, as well as what individual factors may be predictive of treatment success or failure. It is also important to be aware of any planned surgical procedures, whether as part of gender-affirming care or otherwise, given that some surgeons may view isotretinoin as a barrier for some procedures, despite limited data to support this.”

Both Dr. Peebles and Dr. Yeung noted that the iPledge risk management program for isotretinoin patients who may become pregnant is problematic. “A trans man who is assigned female at birth and identifies as a man and has a uterus and ovaries must be registered as a female with reproductive potential,” Dr. Yeung said.

“While the program remains inherently discriminatory, it is important to have an honest conversation with patients about these issues in a sensitive way,” Dr. Peebles noted. “Luckily, there is substantial momentum building around modifying iPLEDGE to become more inclusive. While the mechanics are complicated and involve a variety of entities and advocacy initiatives, we are optimistic that major changes are in the pipeline.”

Dr. Mansh, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles reported no disclosures.

Dermatologists cautioned colleagues to be aware of special hazards facing the LGBTQ community: A higher risk of skin cancer among gay men, possibly because of excess ultraviolet exposure, and acne in transgender people, who are especially vulnerable to acne because of hormone therapy.

The identities of sexual minorities “have a significant influence on many facets of health,” dermatologist Matthew Mansh, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

In regard to skin cancer, he said, “there seems to be consistently higher rates of skin cancer and certain preventable risk behaviors like indoor tanning among sexual minority men.”

Dr. Mansh, codirector of the high-risk nonmelanoma skin cancer clinic at the University of Minnesota, highlighted a report, published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, that used 2014-2018 U.S. survey data of over 870,000 adults to look at the association between sexual orientation and lifetime prevalence of skin cancer. The investigators found that gay and bisexual men had a higher lifetime prevalence of skin cancer compared with heterosexual men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.50; P = .02; and aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .04; for gay and bisexual men, respectively).

When compared with heterosexual women, risk among bisexual women was lower (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P  = .02), but not among lesbian women (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33; P = .95, respectively).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions, Dr. Mansh said, although there’s been fairly little research in this area. What could explain these differences? Factors such as smoking, age, and alcohol use affect skin cancer risk, he said, but these studies control for those variables. Instead, he noted, it’s useful to look at studies of ultraviolet exposure.

For example, he highlighted a study published in JAMA Dermatology in 2015, which examined 12-month indoor-tanning rates and skin cancer prevalence by sexual orientation, using data from California and national health interview surveys. The study found that compared with heterosexual men, “sexual minority men had higher rates of indoor tanning by roughly three- to sixfold,” said Dr. Mansh, the lead author. “And this was among respondents who were adults over age 18. People between the ages of 18 and 34 years are important from a skin cancer perspective as it’s well established that exposure to tanning beds at a younger age is most associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.”

Sexual minority men were also significantly more likely to report having skin cancer, compared with heterosexual men.

In the study, sexual minority women had about half the odds of engaging in indoor tanning compared with heterosexual women, and were less likely to report having been diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer, he added.

Other studies suggest that gay and bisexual men live in neighborhoods with more indoor tanning salons and that they may spend more time in the sun outside too, he said. Some research suggests motivations for tanning include social pressure and the desire to improve appearance, he added.

Overall, “we may be able to use these data to add more appropriate screening and recommendations for these patients, which are sorely lacking in dermatology,” and to design targeted behavioral interventions, said Dr. Mansh, codirector of the dermatology gender care clinic at the University of Minnesota.

What can dermatologists do now? In an interview, dermatologist Jon Klint Peebles, MD, of the mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, in Largo, Md., suggested that colleagues ask patients questions about indoor tanning frequency, the motivations for tanning, exposure to outdoor ultraviolet radiation, sunscreen use, and use of photoprotective clothing.

Hormone therapy and acne

In a related presentation at the meeting, Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta, said that in transgender people, estrogen therapy can actually reduce sebum production and often improves acne, while testosterone therapy frequently has the opposite effect.

“We’ve seen some pretty tough cases of acne in transmasculine patients in my practice,” said Dr. Yeung, who highlighted a recently published study that tracked 988 transgender patients in Boston who underwent testosterone therapy. Nearly a third were diagnosed with acne, compared with 6% prior to hormone therapy, and those at the highest risk were aged 18-21.

The prevalence of acne was 25% 2 years after initiation of hormone therapy. “Acne remains a very common issue and not just at the beginning of treatment,” he said.

In 2020, Dr. Yeung and colleagues reported the results of a survey of 696 transgender patients in California and Georgia; most were treated with hormone therapy. They found that 14% of transmasculine patients reported currently having moderate to severe acne diagnosed by a physician, compared with 1% of transfeminine patients.

Dr. Yeung noted that another survey of transmasculine persons who had received testosterone found that those who had moderate to severe acne were more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety than were those who had never had acne (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.4; P = .001, for depression; and aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P = .002, for anxiety).

Acne treatments in transmasculine patients are complicated by the fact that hormone treatments for acne can have feminizing effects, Dr. Yeung said, adding that it’s not clear how clascoterone, a new anti-androgen topical therapy for acne, will affect them. For now, many patients will require isotretinoin for treating acne.

Dr. Peebles cautioned that with isotretinoin, “we still do not yet have solid data on the optimal dosing or duration in the context of testosterone-induced acne, as well as what individual factors may be predictive of treatment success or failure. It is also important to be aware of any planned surgical procedures, whether as part of gender-affirming care or otherwise, given that some surgeons may view isotretinoin as a barrier for some procedures, despite limited data to support this.”

Both Dr. Peebles and Dr. Yeung noted that the iPledge risk management program for isotretinoin patients who may become pregnant is problematic. “A trans man who is assigned female at birth and identifies as a man and has a uterus and ovaries must be registered as a female with reproductive potential,” Dr. Yeung said.

“While the program remains inherently discriminatory, it is important to have an honest conversation with patients about these issues in a sensitive way,” Dr. Peebles noted. “Luckily, there is substantial momentum building around modifying iPLEDGE to become more inclusive. While the mechanics are complicated and involve a variety of entities and advocacy initiatives, we are optimistic that major changes are in the pipeline.”

Dr. Mansh, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles reported no disclosures.

Dermatologists cautioned colleagues to be aware of special hazards facing the LGBTQ community: A higher risk of skin cancer among gay men, possibly because of excess ultraviolet exposure, and acne in transgender people, who are especially vulnerable to acne because of hormone therapy.

The identities of sexual minorities “have a significant influence on many facets of health,” dermatologist Matthew Mansh, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

In regard to skin cancer, he said, “there seems to be consistently higher rates of skin cancer and certain preventable risk behaviors like indoor tanning among sexual minority men.”

Dr. Mansh, codirector of the high-risk nonmelanoma skin cancer clinic at the University of Minnesota, highlighted a report, published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, that used 2014-2018 U.S. survey data of over 870,000 adults to look at the association between sexual orientation and lifetime prevalence of skin cancer. The investigators found that gay and bisexual men had a higher lifetime prevalence of skin cancer compared with heterosexual men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.50; P = .02; and aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .04; for gay and bisexual men, respectively).

When compared with heterosexual women, risk among bisexual women was lower (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P  = .02), but not among lesbian women (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33; P = .95, respectively).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions, Dr. Mansh said, although there’s been fairly little research in this area. What could explain these differences? Factors such as smoking, age, and alcohol use affect skin cancer risk, he said, but these studies control for those variables. Instead, he noted, it’s useful to look at studies of ultraviolet exposure.

For example, he highlighted a study published in JAMA Dermatology in 2015, which examined 12-month indoor-tanning rates and skin cancer prevalence by sexual orientation, using data from California and national health interview surveys. The study found that compared with heterosexual men, “sexual minority men had higher rates of indoor tanning by roughly three- to sixfold,” said Dr. Mansh, the lead author. “And this was among respondents who were adults over age 18. People between the ages of 18 and 34 years are important from a skin cancer perspective as it’s well established that exposure to tanning beds at a younger age is most associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.”

Sexual minority men were also significantly more likely to report having skin cancer, compared with heterosexual men.

In the study, sexual minority women had about half the odds of engaging in indoor tanning compared with heterosexual women, and were less likely to report having been diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer, he added.

Other studies suggest that gay and bisexual men live in neighborhoods with more indoor tanning salons and that they may spend more time in the sun outside too, he said. Some research suggests motivations for tanning include social pressure and the desire to improve appearance, he added.

Overall, “we may be able to use these data to add more appropriate screening and recommendations for these patients, which are sorely lacking in dermatology,” and to design targeted behavioral interventions, said Dr. Mansh, codirector of the dermatology gender care clinic at the University of Minnesota.

What can dermatologists do now? In an interview, dermatologist Jon Klint Peebles, MD, of the mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, in Largo, Md., suggested that colleagues ask patients questions about indoor tanning frequency, the motivations for tanning, exposure to outdoor ultraviolet radiation, sunscreen use, and use of photoprotective clothing.

Hormone therapy and acne

In a related presentation at the meeting, Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta, said that in transgender people, estrogen therapy can actually reduce sebum production and often improves acne, while testosterone therapy frequently has the opposite effect.

“We’ve seen some pretty tough cases of acne in transmasculine patients in my practice,” said Dr. Yeung, who highlighted a recently published study that tracked 988 transgender patients in Boston who underwent testosterone therapy. Nearly a third were diagnosed with acne, compared with 6% prior to hormone therapy, and those at the highest risk were aged 18-21.

The prevalence of acne was 25% 2 years after initiation of hormone therapy. “Acne remains a very common issue and not just at the beginning of treatment,” he said.

In 2020, Dr. Yeung and colleagues reported the results of a survey of 696 transgender patients in California and Georgia; most were treated with hormone therapy. They found that 14% of transmasculine patients reported currently having moderate to severe acne diagnosed by a physician, compared with 1% of transfeminine patients.

Dr. Yeung noted that another survey of transmasculine persons who had received testosterone found that those who had moderate to severe acne were more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety than were those who had never had acne (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.4; P = .001, for depression; and aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P = .002, for anxiety).

Acne treatments in transmasculine patients are complicated by the fact that hormone treatments for acne can have feminizing effects, Dr. Yeung said, adding that it’s not clear how clascoterone, a new anti-androgen topical therapy for acne, will affect them. For now, many patients will require isotretinoin for treating acne.

Dr. Peebles cautioned that with isotretinoin, “we still do not yet have solid data on the optimal dosing or duration in the context of testosterone-induced acne, as well as what individual factors may be predictive of treatment success or failure. It is also important to be aware of any planned surgical procedures, whether as part of gender-affirming care or otherwise, given that some surgeons may view isotretinoin as a barrier for some procedures, despite limited data to support this.”

Both Dr. Peebles and Dr. Yeung noted that the iPledge risk management program for isotretinoin patients who may become pregnant is problematic. “A trans man who is assigned female at birth and identifies as a man and has a uterus and ovaries must be registered as a female with reproductive potential,” Dr. Yeung said.

“While the program remains inherently discriminatory, it is important to have an honest conversation with patients about these issues in a sensitive way,” Dr. Peebles noted. “Luckily, there is substantial momentum building around modifying iPLEDGE to become more inclusive. While the mechanics are complicated and involve a variety of entities and advocacy initiatives, we are optimistic that major changes are in the pipeline.”

Dr. Mansh, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles reported no disclosures.