Dermatology News

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Outrageous assertions with little evidence are not new. Even the famous statement “There’s a sucker born every minute,” long attributed to 1800s showman P.T. Barnum, lacks evidence that the circus founder uttered the remark. The message itself and the snippet of a story about the message may be pertinent, though, when we consider the touted benefits of Bacillus lysate for the skin. The focus of this column will be the foundation for the use of probiotics and prebiotics in skin care and then claims made about this skin care ingredient derived from a particular strain of Bacillus bacteria.

The benefits of prebiotics and probiotics to human health, and skin health in particular, have been investigated with increasing frequency in the last 20 years. Typically, this topic is broached in the context of the gut-skin axis and the skin and gut microbiomes.^1-3 In 2014, Miyazaki et al. found that phenols produced by gut bacteria spurred skin disorders and that decreasing phenols with probiotics and/or prebiotics can restore or maintain cutaneous health.⁴

Probiotics have been associated with antioxidant activity, primarily because of the presence of antioxidant enzymes (eg, superoxide dismutase), the delivery of antioxidant substances (eg, glutathione), and extracellular polysaccharide synthesis.^5-8 Further, probiotics are known to synthesize a cascade of substances with anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, immunomodulatory, and angiogenetic functions that can contribute to wound healing.⁹ The use of probiotics in skin health largely relies on applying inactivated beneficial bacteria.¹⁰ Prebiotics, which are non-digestible plant-based carbohydrates that aid digestion, inhibit pathogens, and support beneficial bacteria, are known to rebalance the skin microflora.¹⁰ In addition, prebiotics are considered a robust option to replace live bacteria in skin formulations.¹¹ Bacterial cell lysates, which include bacterial metabolites, cell walls, and dead bacteria, are incorporated into skin care products as well.¹²

Probiotics and Wound Healing

In 2020, Ashoori et al. reported on their study of three formulations composed of probiotic supernatant (Lactobacillus reuteri, L. fermentum, and Bacillus subtilis sp. natto)-loaded chitosan nanogels prepared from cultures. They evaluated the effectiveness and dressing activity of the formulations by gauging wound closure and histological results in Sprague-Dawley rats. The researchers found that all probiotic lysate preparations conferred healing properties, with the Bacillus subtilis natto yielding the best wound healing quality. They concluded that probiotic lysate nanogels impart a range of benefits, such as favorable wound closure rates, improved appearance, and suitable histological results upon in vivo examination, supporting the potential use of such formulations to treat wounds.⁹

Probiotics and Treating Skin Disorders

A 2015 review by Roudsari et al. suggests that probiotics display the potential for preventing and treating various skin disorders, including acne, atopic dermatitis, allergic inflammation or hypersensitivity, eczema, photodamage, and wounds.⁸ They reported that in a US patent, Gueniche revealed ways to employ at least one probiotic microorganism (from Lactobacillus and/or Bifidobacterium) as an active agent to prevent or treat skin irritation.^8,13 In addition, they noted that L. brevis was used successfully by DeSimone in 2003 to promote apoptosis and/or diminish inflammation, particularly in creams and ointments to alleviate inflammation.8

At around the same time, Miyazaki et al. reported that Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract stimulated the production of hyaluronic acid (HA) in organotypic cultures of human keratinocytes, cultures of human skin fibroblasts, and hairless mouse skin after 2 weeks of topical application and has the potential to promote HA synthesis in the epidermis and dermis and thus act as an anti-aging agent.¹⁴ In another study, Miyazaki et al. investigated the impact of Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract containing genistein and daidzein on the HA content of hairless mouse as well as human skin. After 6 weeks of topical application in mice, skin elasticity, viscoelasticity, hydration, and thickness improved, and HA content increased. In addition, after 3 months of topical application of a 10% Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract gel to the human forearm, decreases in skin elasticity were significantly mitigated.¹⁵More recently, in 2023, Xie et al. reviewed clinical and experimental data on the use of various species of Lactobacillus for the treatment and prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD). They found evidence that multiple species (L. rhamnosus in animal and clinical experiments) appeared to be effective in preventing and treating AD, with L. acidophilus lessening symptoms and reported to be safe, L. plantarum improving symptoms through immunomodulatory activity, and L. sakei demonstrating anti-inflammatory and skin barrier protective activity. The authors also noted that L. paracasei exhibited anti-inflammatory effects on AD-like skin lesions, and L. reuteri supplementation prevented AD development. Overall, they called for more in vivo studies and randomized controlled clinical trials to fully elucidate the wide-ranging potential of Lactobacillus species in treating and preventing AD.¹⁶

The Darker Side of Using Prebiotic Species in Skin Care?

According to manufacturer Delavie Sciences, its Aeonia product line was based on research conducted on the International Space Station, which allowed for its patented microorganism to be exposed to the conditions of outer space. This cornerstone ingredient, Bacillus lysate, once returned to Earth, reportedly exhibited anti-aging and UV-protective characteristics. The product line has been described as a prebiotic that contributes to a healthy skin barrier.¹⁷

In a September 2023 interview in CosmeticsDesign, the president of Delavie Sciences clarified that its Bacillus lysate contains no live bacteria and that it is not a probiotic, but rather, the certified prebiotic lysate is a Bacillus extract that has been used to strengthen the SPF potency of skin care formulations.¹⁸ Because of the research performed on the International Space Station, the manufacturers are claiming these ingredients could be “out-of-this-world” as a way to promote results that have, as yet, not been verified by peer review. 

 

Conclusion

Probiotics and prebiotics continue to be the focus of multiple lines of research for their applications and further potential in skin care. In the case of the Bacillus lysate prebiotic compound, there is a kernel of an interesting idea here, at the very least. But proprietary research limits our ability to render a comprehensive evaluation at this time. Such bold and outrageous claims spur more skepticism than optimism. However, lysates are the latest thing in skin care — so we need to keep watch on the developments to stay current. But that’s what you have me for, I’ll help keep you current on new ingredient findings. If you are on LinkedIn, come connect with me. I post breaking ingredient news and skin care trends there to help you answer patient questions. When you are asked if these lysates work, the answer is: All the data we have on bacillus extract are from computer analysis of the ingredient properties and not on the actual formulations or products. Stay tuned.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Mahmud MR et al. Gut Microbes. 2022 Jan-Dec;14(1):2096995. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2096995.

2. Sinha S et al. Clin Dermatol. 2021 Sep-Oct;39(5):829-839. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2021.08.021.

3. Gao T et al. Nutrients. 2023 Jul 13;15(14):3123. doi: 10.3390/nu15143123.

4. Miyazaki K et al. Benef Microbes. 2014 Jun 1;5(2):121-128. doi: 10.3920/BM2012.0066.

5. Shen Q et al. Anaerobe. 2010 Aug;16(4):380-386. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.06.006.

6. Peran L et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006 Dec;21(8):737-746. doi: 10.1007/s00384-005-0773-y.

7. Kodali VP, Sen R. Biotechnol J. 2008 Feb;3(2):245-251. doi: 10.1002/biot.200700208.

8. Roudsari MR et al. Health effects of probiotics on the skin. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(9):1219-40. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2012.680078.

9. Ashoori Y et al. Biomed Res Int. 2020 Dec 28;2020:8868618. doi: 10.1155/2020/8868618.

10. Simmering R, Breves R. Hautarzt. 2009 Oct;60(10):809-814. doi: 10.1007/s00105-009-1759-4.

11. Bockmuhl D. IFSSC Mag. 2006 Sep 30;9[3]:1-5.

12. Lew LC, Liong MT. J Appl Microbiol. 2013 May;114(5):1241-1253. doi: 10.1111/jam.12137.

13. Gueniche A. US Patent, US 20100226892. 2010.

14. Miyazaki K et al. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):108-116. doi: 10.1159/000069031.

15. Miyazaki et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2004 Sep-Oct;55(5):473-479.16. Xie A et al. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023 Feb 16;13:1137275. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137275.

17. Delavie Sciences. Skincare Science: Aeonia. Skincare from the Stars.

. Accessed December 12, 2024. 

18. Stern C. CosmeticsDesign USA. September 7, 2023.

Outrageous assertions with little evidence are not new. Even the famous statement “There’s a sucker born every minute,” long attributed to 1800s showman P.T. Barnum, lacks evidence that the circus founder uttered the remark. The message itself and the snippet of a story about the message may be pertinent, though, when we consider the touted benefits of Bacillus lysate for the skin. The focus of this column will be the foundation for the use of probiotics and prebiotics in skin care and then claims made about this skin care ingredient derived from a particular strain of Bacillus bacteria.

The benefits of prebiotics and probiotics to human health, and skin health in particular, have been investigated with increasing frequency in the last 20 years. Typically, this topic is broached in the context of the gut-skin axis and the skin and gut microbiomes.^1-3 In 2014, Miyazaki et al. found that phenols produced by gut bacteria spurred skin disorders and that decreasing phenols with probiotics and/or prebiotics can restore or maintain cutaneous health.⁴

Probiotics have been associated with antioxidant activity, primarily because of the presence of antioxidant enzymes (eg, superoxide dismutase), the delivery of antioxidant substances (eg, glutathione), and extracellular polysaccharide synthesis.^5-8 Further, probiotics are known to synthesize a cascade of substances with anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, immunomodulatory, and angiogenetic functions that can contribute to wound healing.⁹ The use of probiotics in skin health largely relies on applying inactivated beneficial bacteria.¹⁰ Prebiotics, which are non-digestible plant-based carbohydrates that aid digestion, inhibit pathogens, and support beneficial bacteria, are known to rebalance the skin microflora.¹⁰ In addition, prebiotics are considered a robust option to replace live bacteria in skin formulations.¹¹ Bacterial cell lysates, which include bacterial metabolites, cell walls, and dead bacteria, are incorporated into skin care products as well.¹²

Probiotics and Wound Healing

In 2020, Ashoori et al. reported on their study of three formulations composed of probiotic supernatant (Lactobacillus reuteri, L. fermentum, and Bacillus subtilis sp. natto)-loaded chitosan nanogels prepared from cultures. They evaluated the effectiveness and dressing activity of the formulations by gauging wound closure and histological results in Sprague-Dawley rats. The researchers found that all probiotic lysate preparations conferred healing properties, with the Bacillus subtilis natto yielding the best wound healing quality. They concluded that probiotic lysate nanogels impart a range of benefits, such as favorable wound closure rates, improved appearance, and suitable histological results upon in vivo examination, supporting the potential use of such formulations to treat wounds.⁹

Probiotics and Treating Skin Disorders

A 2015 review by Roudsari et al. suggests that probiotics display the potential for preventing and treating various skin disorders, including acne, atopic dermatitis, allergic inflammation or hypersensitivity, eczema, photodamage, and wounds.⁸ They reported that in a US patent, Gueniche revealed ways to employ at least one probiotic microorganism (from Lactobacillus and/or Bifidobacterium) as an active agent to prevent or treat skin irritation.^8,13 In addition, they noted that L. brevis was used successfully by DeSimone in 2003 to promote apoptosis and/or diminish inflammation, particularly in creams and ointments to alleviate inflammation.8

At around the same time, Miyazaki et al. reported that Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract stimulated the production of hyaluronic acid (HA) in organotypic cultures of human keratinocytes, cultures of human skin fibroblasts, and hairless mouse skin after 2 weeks of topical application and has the potential to promote HA synthesis in the epidermis and dermis and thus act as an anti-aging agent.¹⁴ In another study, Miyazaki et al. investigated the impact of Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract containing genistein and daidzein on the HA content of hairless mouse as well as human skin. After 6 weeks of topical application in mice, skin elasticity, viscoelasticity, hydration, and thickness improved, and HA content increased. In addition, after 3 months of topical application of a 10% Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract gel to the human forearm, decreases in skin elasticity were significantly mitigated.¹⁵More recently, in 2023, Xie et al. reviewed clinical and experimental data on the use of various species of Lactobacillus for the treatment and prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD). They found evidence that multiple species (L. rhamnosus in animal and clinical experiments) appeared to be effective in preventing and treating AD, with L. acidophilus lessening symptoms and reported to be safe, L. plantarum improving symptoms through immunomodulatory activity, and L. sakei demonstrating anti-inflammatory and skin barrier protective activity. The authors also noted that L. paracasei exhibited anti-inflammatory effects on AD-like skin lesions, and L. reuteri supplementation prevented AD development. Overall, they called for more in vivo studies and randomized controlled clinical trials to fully elucidate the wide-ranging potential of Lactobacillus species in treating and preventing AD.¹⁶

The Darker Side of Using Prebiotic Species in Skin Care?

According to manufacturer Delavie Sciences, its Aeonia product line was based on research conducted on the International Space Station, which allowed for its patented microorganism to be exposed to the conditions of outer space. This cornerstone ingredient, Bacillus lysate, once returned to Earth, reportedly exhibited anti-aging and UV-protective characteristics. The product line has been described as a prebiotic that contributes to a healthy skin barrier.¹⁷

In a September 2023 interview in CosmeticsDesign, the president of Delavie Sciences clarified that its Bacillus lysate contains no live bacteria and that it is not a probiotic, but rather, the certified prebiotic lysate is a Bacillus extract that has been used to strengthen the SPF potency of skin care formulations.¹⁸ Because of the research performed on the International Space Station, the manufacturers are claiming these ingredients could be “out-of-this-world” as a way to promote results that have, as yet, not been verified by peer review. 

 

Conclusion

Probiotics and prebiotics continue to be the focus of multiple lines of research for their applications and further potential in skin care. In the case of the Bacillus lysate prebiotic compound, there is a kernel of an interesting idea here, at the very least. But proprietary research limits our ability to render a comprehensive evaluation at this time. Such bold and outrageous claims spur more skepticism than optimism. However, lysates are the latest thing in skin care — so we need to keep watch on the developments to stay current. But that’s what you have me for, I’ll help keep you current on new ingredient findings. If you are on LinkedIn, come connect with me. I post breaking ingredient news and skin care trends there to help you answer patient questions. When you are asked if these lysates work, the answer is: All the data we have on bacillus extract are from computer analysis of the ingredient properties and not on the actual formulations or products. Stay tuned.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Mahmud MR et al. Gut Microbes. 2022 Jan-Dec;14(1):2096995. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2096995.

2. Sinha S et al. Clin Dermatol. 2021 Sep-Oct;39(5):829-839. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2021.08.021.

3. Gao T et al. Nutrients. 2023 Jul 13;15(14):3123. doi: 10.3390/nu15143123.

4. Miyazaki K et al. Benef Microbes. 2014 Jun 1;5(2):121-128. doi: 10.3920/BM2012.0066.

5. Shen Q et al. Anaerobe. 2010 Aug;16(4):380-386. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.06.006.

6. Peran L et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006 Dec;21(8):737-746. doi: 10.1007/s00384-005-0773-y.

7. Kodali VP, Sen R. Biotechnol J. 2008 Feb;3(2):245-251. doi: 10.1002/biot.200700208.

8. Roudsari MR et al. Health effects of probiotics on the skin. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(9):1219-40. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2012.680078.

9. Ashoori Y et al. Biomed Res Int. 2020 Dec 28;2020:8868618. doi: 10.1155/2020/8868618.

10. Simmering R, Breves R. Hautarzt. 2009 Oct;60(10):809-814. doi: 10.1007/s00105-009-1759-4.

11. Bockmuhl D. IFSSC Mag. 2006 Sep 30;9[3]:1-5.

12. Lew LC, Liong MT. J Appl Microbiol. 2013 May;114(5):1241-1253. doi: 10.1111/jam.12137.

13. Gueniche A. US Patent, US 20100226892. 2010.

14. Miyazaki K et al. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):108-116. doi: 10.1159/000069031.

15. Miyazaki et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2004 Sep-Oct;55(5):473-479.16. Xie A et al. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023 Feb 16;13:1137275. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137275.

17. Delavie Sciences. Skincare Science: Aeonia. Skincare from the Stars.

. Accessed December 12, 2024. 

18. Stern C. CosmeticsDesign USA. September 7, 2023.

Outrageous assertions with little evidence are not new. Even the famous statement “There’s a sucker born every minute,” long attributed to 1800s showman P.T. Barnum, lacks evidence that the circus founder uttered the remark. The message itself and the snippet of a story about the message may be pertinent, though, when we consider the touted benefits of Bacillus lysate for the skin. The focus of this column will be the foundation for the use of probiotics and prebiotics in skin care and then claims made about this skin care ingredient derived from a particular strain of Bacillus bacteria.

The benefits of prebiotics and probiotics to human health, and skin health in particular, have been investigated with increasing frequency in the last 20 years. Typically, this topic is broached in the context of the gut-skin axis and the skin and gut microbiomes.^1-3 In 2014, Miyazaki et al. found that phenols produced by gut bacteria spurred skin disorders and that decreasing phenols with probiotics and/or prebiotics can restore or maintain cutaneous health.⁴

Probiotics have been associated with antioxidant activity, primarily because of the presence of antioxidant enzymes (eg, superoxide dismutase), the delivery of antioxidant substances (eg, glutathione), and extracellular polysaccharide synthesis.^5-8 Further, probiotics are known to synthesize a cascade of substances with anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, immunomodulatory, and angiogenetic functions that can contribute to wound healing.⁹ The use of probiotics in skin health largely relies on applying inactivated beneficial bacteria.¹⁰ Prebiotics, which are non-digestible plant-based carbohydrates that aid digestion, inhibit pathogens, and support beneficial bacteria, are known to rebalance the skin microflora.¹⁰ In addition, prebiotics are considered a robust option to replace live bacteria in skin formulations.¹¹ Bacterial cell lysates, which include bacterial metabolites, cell walls, and dead bacteria, are incorporated into skin care products as well.¹²

Probiotics and Wound Healing

In 2020, Ashoori et al. reported on their study of three formulations composed of probiotic supernatant (Lactobacillus reuteri, L. fermentum, and Bacillus subtilis sp. natto)-loaded chitosan nanogels prepared from cultures. They evaluated the effectiveness and dressing activity of the formulations by gauging wound closure and histological results in Sprague-Dawley rats. The researchers found that all probiotic lysate preparations conferred healing properties, with the Bacillus subtilis natto yielding the best wound healing quality. They concluded that probiotic lysate nanogels impart a range of benefits, such as favorable wound closure rates, improved appearance, and suitable histological results upon in vivo examination, supporting the potential use of such formulations to treat wounds.⁹

Probiotics and Treating Skin Disorders

A 2015 review by Roudsari et al. suggests that probiotics display the potential for preventing and treating various skin disorders, including acne, atopic dermatitis, allergic inflammation or hypersensitivity, eczema, photodamage, and wounds.⁸ They reported that in a US patent, Gueniche revealed ways to employ at least one probiotic microorganism (from Lactobacillus and/or Bifidobacterium) as an active agent to prevent or treat skin irritation.^8,13 In addition, they noted that L. brevis was used successfully by DeSimone in 2003 to promote apoptosis and/or diminish inflammation, particularly in creams and ointments to alleviate inflammation.8

At around the same time, Miyazaki et al. reported that Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract stimulated the production of hyaluronic acid (HA) in organotypic cultures of human keratinocytes, cultures of human skin fibroblasts, and hairless mouse skin after 2 weeks of topical application and has the potential to promote HA synthesis in the epidermis and dermis and thus act as an anti-aging agent.¹⁴ In another study, Miyazaki et al. investigated the impact of Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract containing genistein and daidzein on the HA content of hairless mouse as well as human skin. After 6 weeks of topical application in mice, skin elasticity, viscoelasticity, hydration, and thickness improved, and HA content increased. In addition, after 3 months of topical application of a 10% Bifidobacterium-fermented soy milk extract gel to the human forearm, decreases in skin elasticity were significantly mitigated.¹⁵More recently, in 2023, Xie et al. reviewed clinical and experimental data on the use of various species of Lactobacillus for the treatment and prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD). They found evidence that multiple species (L. rhamnosus in animal and clinical experiments) appeared to be effective in preventing and treating AD, with L. acidophilus lessening symptoms and reported to be safe, L. plantarum improving symptoms through immunomodulatory activity, and L. sakei demonstrating anti-inflammatory and skin barrier protective activity. The authors also noted that L. paracasei exhibited anti-inflammatory effects on AD-like skin lesions, and L. reuteri supplementation prevented AD development. Overall, they called for more in vivo studies and randomized controlled clinical trials to fully elucidate the wide-ranging potential of Lactobacillus species in treating and preventing AD.¹⁶

The Darker Side of Using Prebiotic Species in Skin Care?

According to manufacturer Delavie Sciences, its Aeonia product line was based on research conducted on the International Space Station, which allowed for its patented microorganism to be exposed to the conditions of outer space. This cornerstone ingredient, Bacillus lysate, once returned to Earth, reportedly exhibited anti-aging and UV-protective characteristics. The product line has been described as a prebiotic that contributes to a healthy skin barrier.¹⁷

In a September 2023 interview in CosmeticsDesign, the president of Delavie Sciences clarified that its Bacillus lysate contains no live bacteria and that it is not a probiotic, but rather, the certified prebiotic lysate is a Bacillus extract that has been used to strengthen the SPF potency of skin care formulations.¹⁸ Because of the research performed on the International Space Station, the manufacturers are claiming these ingredients could be “out-of-this-world” as a way to promote results that have, as yet, not been verified by peer review. 

 

Conclusion

Probiotics and prebiotics continue to be the focus of multiple lines of research for their applications and further potential in skin care. In the case of the Bacillus lysate prebiotic compound, there is a kernel of an interesting idea here, at the very least. But proprietary research limits our ability to render a comprehensive evaluation at this time. Such bold and outrageous claims spur more skepticism than optimism. However, lysates are the latest thing in skin care — so we need to keep watch on the developments to stay current. But that’s what you have me for, I’ll help keep you current on new ingredient findings. If you are on LinkedIn, come connect with me. I post breaking ingredient news and skin care trends there to help you answer patient questions. When you are asked if these lysates work, the answer is: All the data we have on bacillus extract are from computer analysis of the ingredient properties and not on the actual formulations or products. Stay tuned.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Mahmud MR et al. Gut Microbes. 2022 Jan-Dec;14(1):2096995. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2096995.

2. Sinha S et al. Clin Dermatol. 2021 Sep-Oct;39(5):829-839. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2021.08.021.

3. Gao T et al. Nutrients. 2023 Jul 13;15(14):3123. doi: 10.3390/nu15143123.

4. Miyazaki K et al. Benef Microbes. 2014 Jun 1;5(2):121-128. doi: 10.3920/BM2012.0066.

5. Shen Q et al. Anaerobe. 2010 Aug;16(4):380-386. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.06.006.

6. Peran L et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006 Dec;21(8):737-746. doi: 10.1007/s00384-005-0773-y.

7. Kodali VP, Sen R. Biotechnol J. 2008 Feb;3(2):245-251. doi: 10.1002/biot.200700208.

8. Roudsari MR et al. Health effects of probiotics on the skin. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(9):1219-40. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2012.680078.

9. Ashoori Y et al. Biomed Res Int. 2020 Dec 28;2020:8868618. doi: 10.1155/2020/8868618.

10. Simmering R, Breves R. Hautarzt. 2009 Oct;60(10):809-814. doi: 10.1007/s00105-009-1759-4.

11. Bockmuhl D. IFSSC Mag. 2006 Sep 30;9[3]:1-5.

12. Lew LC, Liong MT. J Appl Microbiol. 2013 May;114(5):1241-1253. doi: 10.1111/jam.12137.

13. Gueniche A. US Patent, US 20100226892. 2010.

14. Miyazaki K et al. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):108-116. doi: 10.1159/000069031.

15. Miyazaki et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2004 Sep-Oct;55(5):473-479.16. Xie A et al. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023 Feb 16;13:1137275. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137275.

17. Delavie Sciences. Skincare Science: Aeonia. Skincare from the Stars.

. Accessed December 12, 2024. 

18. Stern C. CosmeticsDesign USA. September 7, 2023.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for melanoma-related death was higher in individuals with tumors with a Breslow thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm than in individuals with tumors smaller than 0.8 mm, in an Australian study that used registry data.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study analyzed 144,447 individuals (median age, 56 years, 54% men) diagnosed with thin (T1) primary invasive melanomas (Breslow thickness, ≤ 1.0 mm) between 1982 and 2014 from all eight Australian state and territory population-based cancer registries.
• The researchers evaluated the associations between Breslow thickness (< 0.8 mm vs 0.8-1.0 mm) and incidences of melanoma-related and nonmelanoma-related deaths.
• The primary endpoint was time to death attributable to a melanoma-related cause, with death by a nonmelanoma-related cause as a competing event.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 20-year cumulative incidence of melanoma-related deaths was 6.3% for the whole cohort. The incidence was higher for tumors with a thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm (11%) than for those with a thickness < 0.8 mm (5.6%).
• The overall 20-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 95.9%, with rates of 94.2% for tumors < 0.8 mm and 87.8% for tumors measuring 0.8-1.0 mm in thickness. Each 0.1-mm increase in Breslow thickness was associated with worse prognosis.
• A multivariable analysis revealed that a tumor thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm was associated with both a greater absolute risk for melanoma-related deaths (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.92) and a higher rate of melanoma-related deaths (hazard ratio, 2.98) than a tumor thickness < 0.8 mm.
• The 20-year incidence of death from nonmelanoma-related causes was 23.4%, but the risk for death from these causes showed no significant association with Breslow thickness categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this large-scale population–based analysis suggest the separation of risk for patients with melanomas with a Breslow thickness above and below 0.8 mm,” the authors wrote, adding: “These results suggest that a change of the T1 threshold from 1.0 mm to 0.8 mm should be considered when the AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging system is next reviewed.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Serigne N. Lo, PhD, Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney. It was published online on December 11, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was registry-based and did not capture details such as tumor characteristics and treatment modalities. Inaccuracies in reporting the cause of death may have led to an underestimation of melanoma-specific mortality risks across all thickness groups and an overestimation of nonmelanoma mortality risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding support from Melanoma Institute Australia and two grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from or having ties with various sources, including NHMRC.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for melanoma-related death was higher in individuals with tumors with a Breslow thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm than in individuals with tumors smaller than 0.8 mm, in an Australian study that used registry data.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study analyzed 144,447 individuals (median age, 56 years, 54% men) diagnosed with thin (T1) primary invasive melanomas (Breslow thickness, ≤ 1.0 mm) between 1982 and 2014 from all eight Australian state and territory population-based cancer registries.
• The researchers evaluated the associations between Breslow thickness (< 0.8 mm vs 0.8-1.0 mm) and incidences of melanoma-related and nonmelanoma-related deaths.
• The primary endpoint was time to death attributable to a melanoma-related cause, with death by a nonmelanoma-related cause as a competing event.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 20-year cumulative incidence of melanoma-related deaths was 6.3% for the whole cohort. The incidence was higher for tumors with a thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm (11%) than for those with a thickness < 0.8 mm (5.6%).
• The overall 20-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 95.9%, with rates of 94.2% for tumors < 0.8 mm and 87.8% for tumors measuring 0.8-1.0 mm in thickness. Each 0.1-mm increase in Breslow thickness was associated with worse prognosis.
• A multivariable analysis revealed that a tumor thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm was associated with both a greater absolute risk for melanoma-related deaths (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.92) and a higher rate of melanoma-related deaths (hazard ratio, 2.98) than a tumor thickness < 0.8 mm.
• The 20-year incidence of death from nonmelanoma-related causes was 23.4%, but the risk for death from these causes showed no significant association with Breslow thickness categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this large-scale population–based analysis suggest the separation of risk for patients with melanomas with a Breslow thickness above and below 0.8 mm,” the authors wrote, adding: “These results suggest that a change of the T1 threshold from 1.0 mm to 0.8 mm should be considered when the AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging system is next reviewed.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Serigne N. Lo, PhD, Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney. It was published online on December 11, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was registry-based and did not capture details such as tumor characteristics and treatment modalities. Inaccuracies in reporting the cause of death may have led to an underestimation of melanoma-specific mortality risks across all thickness groups and an overestimation of nonmelanoma mortality risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding support from Melanoma Institute Australia and two grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from or having ties with various sources, including NHMRC.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for melanoma-related death was higher in individuals with tumors with a Breslow thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm than in individuals with tumors smaller than 0.8 mm, in an Australian study that used registry data.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study analyzed 144,447 individuals (median age, 56 years, 54% men) diagnosed with thin (T1) primary invasive melanomas (Breslow thickness, ≤ 1.0 mm) between 1982 and 2014 from all eight Australian state and territory population-based cancer registries.
• The researchers evaluated the associations between Breslow thickness (< 0.8 mm vs 0.8-1.0 mm) and incidences of melanoma-related and nonmelanoma-related deaths.
• The primary endpoint was time to death attributable to a melanoma-related cause, with death by a nonmelanoma-related cause as a competing event.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 20-year cumulative incidence of melanoma-related deaths was 6.3% for the whole cohort. The incidence was higher for tumors with a thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm (11%) than for those with a thickness < 0.8 mm (5.6%).
• The overall 20-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 95.9%, with rates of 94.2% for tumors < 0.8 mm and 87.8% for tumors measuring 0.8-1.0 mm in thickness. Each 0.1-mm increase in Breslow thickness was associated with worse prognosis.
• A multivariable analysis revealed that a tumor thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm was associated with both a greater absolute risk for melanoma-related deaths (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.92) and a higher rate of melanoma-related deaths (hazard ratio, 2.98) than a tumor thickness < 0.8 mm.
• The 20-year incidence of death from nonmelanoma-related causes was 23.4%, but the risk for death from these causes showed no significant association with Breslow thickness categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this large-scale population–based analysis suggest the separation of risk for patients with melanomas with a Breslow thickness above and below 0.8 mm,” the authors wrote, adding: “These results suggest that a change of the T1 threshold from 1.0 mm to 0.8 mm should be considered when the AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging system is next reviewed.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Serigne N. Lo, PhD, Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney. It was published online on December 11, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was registry-based and did not capture details such as tumor characteristics and treatment modalities. Inaccuracies in reporting the cause of death may have led to an underestimation of melanoma-specific mortality risks across all thickness groups and an overestimation of nonmelanoma mortality risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding support from Melanoma Institute Australia and two grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from or having ties with various sources, including NHMRC.

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

Daniel C. Butler, MD, is associate professor of dermatology and director of the new Inflammatory and Aging Skin Research Program in the Division of Dermatology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. Before returning to Arizona, where he had attended medical school, Butler practiced and was a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and its geriatric dermatology clinic. He is a co-founder and continues to co-lead the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Geriatric Dermatology Expert Resource Group (ERG).

Butler’s interest in geriatric dermatology is rooted in his experience growing up with four grandparents and witnessing their wisdom, relationships, moments with loved ones, and other unique and desirable parts of growing old. “When I looked later at how aging was perceived in dermatology, I found it was a lot about ‘antiaging,’” he told this news organization. “I thought there was a needed voice in dermatology for healthy aging, for all the desirable things that only growing old can provide, along with all the incredible ‘antiaging’ things we can do.”

In interviews, Butler spoke about research priorities in geriatric dermatology, how the “4M” model of geriatrics should be applied within dermatology, how dermatologists can best work with older complex patients, and more. The conversation was edited for clarity and length.

 

What is geriatric dermatology? It is described by the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG as “an emerging subspecialty.” Yet it’s also viewed more broadly. Please speak about its various identities and meanings and its importance for dermatology.

I’d describe geriatric dermatology as a “supra-specialty” in theory because it encapsulates a part of many practices. If you’re a general dermatologist, about 50% of your patients are over the age of 65. If you’re a Mohs surgeon, you’re seeing a strong majority of over 65 patients. And in various specialty clinics, such as inflammatory skin disease, geriatric dermatology pertains to you. In many ways, it can be viewed as a mindset.

From a framework standpoint, and as a field, geriatric dermatology is a basic science initiative, a clinical initiative, an educational initiative, and an advocacy initiative. The goal is to be able to influence, grow, and learn in each of these categories for our older patients. This is happening: Research in this field has progressed, and education has progressed, which has driven some progress in clinical care.

 

How has research progressed in the basic science of aging skin? What are key questions for dermatology?

There has been a lot of basic science research on aging skin and on how an aging immune system, for instance, is reflected in conditions such as bullous pemphigoid, atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic itch. But aging involves more than immunosenescence. I think of aging skin as a three-headed monster that involves changes in the skin barrier and the microbiome as well. But is there a primary piece of aging in the skin? What comes first or influences the other? More research on these questions can potentially influence our treatments.

With respect to the immune system, what we’re finding in the skin is that age-related change is not a decline in the immune system per se, but rather aberrance in response. Parts of the system tend to become overactive, with a skew toward overexpression of type 2 inflammation. This can be problematic, driving conditions such as chronic itch.

With respect to the skin barrier, we lose essential fatty acids, and we lose a lot of our recovery ability and our ability to respond quickly to environmental stressors. But are barrier changes triggering the immune system? Or is it the other way around?

The microbiome, which is a big focus of research, involves similar chicken-and-egg discussions. Is it the microbiome that changes and alters the barrier, which then entices the immune system? Which one happens first? We have a lot to learn, and there’s probably not one answer for every patient.

 

Please speak about research more broadly. What questions and issues need to be answered and addressed to improve the dermatologic care of older adults?

In general, research in dermatology is very disease-specific and not particularly conducive to looking at the larger demographic populations. We have a huge opportunity, therefore, to break the mold and grow geriatric dermatology as an area of population-based research — so that geriatric dermatology research encompasses not only the melanoma researcher who’s trying to understand how aging influences the melanocytes but also the epidemiologic researcher looking at how our diagnoses and coding and prescription practices are different in the 65-plus age group.

Clinically speaking, researchers want to better understand how aging influences the clinical presentations of our diseases. And there’s research to be done on best practices. For example, what are the best practices for treating basal cell carcinomas in patients with mild cognitive impairment? How should we consider the use of topicals in a patient who has severe arthritis or who lives alone? And then how should we teach practical approaches to help providers meet people where they are?

Looking at it from a healthcare system standpoint, there are many care delivery and access issues — practical pieces — to research, and we’re getting a lot better with this. We’re also advocating not only for more inclusion of older adults in clinical trials of treatments but also for the use of evaluations and outcomes that are relevant and important for older adults.

One piece of good news is that we’re seeing safer treatment options with tremendous efficacy that target known pathways for diseases like AD and chronic itch that affect older adults. Again, now we must find ways to improve access to these novel, safe options.

Our research program at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, which we’re just getting off the ground, aims to be dual-sided, looking both at the basic science of aging skin and at access and care delivery issues, such as how to ensure that patients on Medicare have access to medications that are at least on par with others with private insurance.

 

What are the most common dermatologic problems experienced by older adults?

Based on my experience and on research that we expect to be published soon, it’s absolutely nonmelanoma skin cancers, precancers like actinic keratoses — and on the inflammatory disease side, itch, AD, and psoriasis. Of course, also common are the age-related changes to the skin that we put in the benign category, such as solar lentigines.

How does age influence dermatologic diseases from a pathophysiological and clinical standpoint?

Diseases overall are very similar and respond to the same treatments, but age in and of itself does influence little pieces. For example, there is more crossover in the presentation of psoriasis and AD in older adults, leading to delays in the diagnosis of psoriasis.

With AD, we’ve found that itch is the predominant symptom for older adults rather than the red rash. We see higher or more severe itch scores in older adults with AD with less visual changes on the skin than in younger cohorts. And rash occurs in different locations than in young patients. Older adults typically present with it on their chest, back, and across the trunk, rather than in folded areas. They’re also more likely to get it on their legs in a nummular pattern as opposed to the more traditional flexural area presentation.

 

What unique considerations need to be made in treating older adults? How should the 4M model of geriatrics be applied to dermatologic care?

Our care model pushes us to be very algorithmic, but at the end of the day, what’s really important are the 4Ms: Mobility, medication, mentation, and “what matters most.” As you’re having your shared decision-making conversations with your patients and their families, these should be your priorities.

A patient with physical limitations, for instance, may not be able to apply a topical cream twice a day all over the body. They may have comorbidities and treatments for these comorbidities that may conflict with medications you’re considering.

And then mentation is so important. For a long time, we used antihistamines for older adults, but this has been proven to be bad for their mentation and risky in other ways. We need to be sure we’re prioritizing their ability to be clear mentally when we’re prescribing medications and even when we’re considering surgical approaches. Do they show capacity for that procedure or treatment, and how will they respond to that treatment later on?

Using the 4M model to drive conversations is a way to get all of us to connect to the patient and learn about what’s most important for them. In many ways, geriatrics is about taking a step back from your specialist skills and thinking about how you would want a family member treated.

We want to avoid treating just the lesion or the pathologic diagnosis. We want to avoid the “conveyor belt” from a biopsy to Mohs. I have 95-year-olds who say, “Heck yeah, if Mohs is the best treatment, that’s what I want.” And I have 70-year-olds who say, “I think I’ll go with another option,” and that’s the right decision for them. It’s having the conversation that matters.

 

In practice, given time constraints and other confines, how can dermatologists best work with more complex older patients? What are your practical tips?

People talk about having 45-minute “golden year” conversations with their older patients, but it doesn’t have to be this way. In pursuing geriatric dermatology, I decided early on that I wanted to make sure it was practical, so I’ve focused on maximizing shorter visits and on embracing the concept that relationships can be developed over time. Each time we meet with someone, we’re building equity to have bigger conversations later on.

I can have a 15-minute conversation about whether my patient may want to have Mohs surgery, for instance, or escalate treatment to a systemic agent for their chronic inflammatory disease. If that time isn’t enough, I can encourage further thought about treatment options, acknowledge that decisions aren’t necessarily easy, and schedule a follow-up or offer to call the patient after clinic to continue the conversation.

Sometimes, when I’m at an impasse and my patient is unsure how to proceed, I’ll use clear metrics relevant to older adults — sleep, activity level, and caregiver burden — to help my patient. If someone is not sleeping because of their lesion — if they’re so itchy or their inflammatory disease is uncontrolled, for instance — I’ll point out that the side effects of not sleeping are worse than the medications or surgery we’d pursue. If someone removes themselves from an activity due to their skin condition, that’s a red flag. And if the caregiver in the room is overwhelmed or frustrated by having to put cream on twice a day, I’ll use this to advance treatment.

 

What resources are available for dermatologists interested in improving their geriatric dermatology skills or advancing the area?

For those interested in investigating these issues or improving their practices, the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG is always welcoming of new members. The ERG will have an all-inclusive meeting at the 2025 annual AAD meeting in March.

The AAD also has educational modules on geriatric dermatology that were recently published as an initiative of our ERG. More information is available on the website. Also valuable is the ElderDerm conference hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; the second such conference takes place in May 2025.

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daniel C. Butler, MD, is associate professor of dermatology and director of the new Inflammatory and Aging Skin Research Program in the Division of Dermatology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. Before returning to Arizona, where he had attended medical school, Butler practiced and was a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and its geriatric dermatology clinic. He is a co-founder and continues to co-lead the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Geriatric Dermatology Expert Resource Group (ERG).

Butler’s interest in geriatric dermatology is rooted in his experience growing up with four grandparents and witnessing their wisdom, relationships, moments with loved ones, and other unique and desirable parts of growing old. “When I looked later at how aging was perceived in dermatology, I found it was a lot about ‘antiaging,’” he told this news organization. “I thought there was a needed voice in dermatology for healthy aging, for all the desirable things that only growing old can provide, along with all the incredible ‘antiaging’ things we can do.”

In interviews, Butler spoke about research priorities in geriatric dermatology, how the “4M” model of geriatrics should be applied within dermatology, how dermatologists can best work with older complex patients, and more. The conversation was edited for clarity and length.

 

What is geriatric dermatology? It is described by the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG as “an emerging subspecialty.” Yet it’s also viewed more broadly. Please speak about its various identities and meanings and its importance for dermatology.

I’d describe geriatric dermatology as a “supra-specialty” in theory because it encapsulates a part of many practices. If you’re a general dermatologist, about 50% of your patients are over the age of 65. If you’re a Mohs surgeon, you’re seeing a strong majority of over 65 patients. And in various specialty clinics, such as inflammatory skin disease, geriatric dermatology pertains to you. In many ways, it can be viewed as a mindset.

From a framework standpoint, and as a field, geriatric dermatology is a basic science initiative, a clinical initiative, an educational initiative, and an advocacy initiative. The goal is to be able to influence, grow, and learn in each of these categories for our older patients. This is happening: Research in this field has progressed, and education has progressed, which has driven some progress in clinical care.

 

How has research progressed in the basic science of aging skin? What are key questions for dermatology?

There has been a lot of basic science research on aging skin and on how an aging immune system, for instance, is reflected in conditions such as bullous pemphigoid, atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic itch. But aging involves more than immunosenescence. I think of aging skin as a three-headed monster that involves changes in the skin barrier and the microbiome as well. But is there a primary piece of aging in the skin? What comes first or influences the other? More research on these questions can potentially influence our treatments.

With respect to the immune system, what we’re finding in the skin is that age-related change is not a decline in the immune system per se, but rather aberrance in response. Parts of the system tend to become overactive, with a skew toward overexpression of type 2 inflammation. This can be problematic, driving conditions such as chronic itch.

With respect to the skin barrier, we lose essential fatty acids, and we lose a lot of our recovery ability and our ability to respond quickly to environmental stressors. But are barrier changes triggering the immune system? Or is it the other way around?

The microbiome, which is a big focus of research, involves similar chicken-and-egg discussions. Is it the microbiome that changes and alters the barrier, which then entices the immune system? Which one happens first? We have a lot to learn, and there’s probably not one answer for every patient.

 

Please speak about research more broadly. What questions and issues need to be answered and addressed to improve the dermatologic care of older adults?

In general, research in dermatology is very disease-specific and not particularly conducive to looking at the larger demographic populations. We have a huge opportunity, therefore, to break the mold and grow geriatric dermatology as an area of population-based research — so that geriatric dermatology research encompasses not only the melanoma researcher who’s trying to understand how aging influences the melanocytes but also the epidemiologic researcher looking at how our diagnoses and coding and prescription practices are different in the 65-plus age group.

Clinically speaking, researchers want to better understand how aging influences the clinical presentations of our diseases. And there’s research to be done on best practices. For example, what are the best practices for treating basal cell carcinomas in patients with mild cognitive impairment? How should we consider the use of topicals in a patient who has severe arthritis or who lives alone? And then how should we teach practical approaches to help providers meet people where they are?

Looking at it from a healthcare system standpoint, there are many care delivery and access issues — practical pieces — to research, and we’re getting a lot better with this. We’re also advocating not only for more inclusion of older adults in clinical trials of treatments but also for the use of evaluations and outcomes that are relevant and important for older adults.

One piece of good news is that we’re seeing safer treatment options with tremendous efficacy that target known pathways for diseases like AD and chronic itch that affect older adults. Again, now we must find ways to improve access to these novel, safe options.

Our research program at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, which we’re just getting off the ground, aims to be dual-sided, looking both at the basic science of aging skin and at access and care delivery issues, such as how to ensure that patients on Medicare have access to medications that are at least on par with others with private insurance.

 

What are the most common dermatologic problems experienced by older adults?

Based on my experience and on research that we expect to be published soon, it’s absolutely nonmelanoma skin cancers, precancers like actinic keratoses — and on the inflammatory disease side, itch, AD, and psoriasis. Of course, also common are the age-related changes to the skin that we put in the benign category, such as solar lentigines.

How does age influence dermatologic diseases from a pathophysiological and clinical standpoint?

Diseases overall are very similar and respond to the same treatments, but age in and of itself does influence little pieces. For example, there is more crossover in the presentation of psoriasis and AD in older adults, leading to delays in the diagnosis of psoriasis.

With AD, we’ve found that itch is the predominant symptom for older adults rather than the red rash. We see higher or more severe itch scores in older adults with AD with less visual changes on the skin than in younger cohorts. And rash occurs in different locations than in young patients. Older adults typically present with it on their chest, back, and across the trunk, rather than in folded areas. They’re also more likely to get it on their legs in a nummular pattern as opposed to the more traditional flexural area presentation.

 

What unique considerations need to be made in treating older adults? How should the 4M model of geriatrics be applied to dermatologic care?

Our care model pushes us to be very algorithmic, but at the end of the day, what’s really important are the 4Ms: Mobility, medication, mentation, and “what matters most.” As you’re having your shared decision-making conversations with your patients and their families, these should be your priorities.

A patient with physical limitations, for instance, may not be able to apply a topical cream twice a day all over the body. They may have comorbidities and treatments for these comorbidities that may conflict with medications you’re considering.

And then mentation is so important. For a long time, we used antihistamines for older adults, but this has been proven to be bad for their mentation and risky in other ways. We need to be sure we’re prioritizing their ability to be clear mentally when we’re prescribing medications and even when we’re considering surgical approaches. Do they show capacity for that procedure or treatment, and how will they respond to that treatment later on?

Using the 4M model to drive conversations is a way to get all of us to connect to the patient and learn about what’s most important for them. In many ways, geriatrics is about taking a step back from your specialist skills and thinking about how you would want a family member treated.

We want to avoid treating just the lesion or the pathologic diagnosis. We want to avoid the “conveyor belt” from a biopsy to Mohs. I have 95-year-olds who say, “Heck yeah, if Mohs is the best treatment, that’s what I want.” And I have 70-year-olds who say, “I think I’ll go with another option,” and that’s the right decision for them. It’s having the conversation that matters.

 

In practice, given time constraints and other confines, how can dermatologists best work with more complex older patients? What are your practical tips?

People talk about having 45-minute “golden year” conversations with their older patients, but it doesn’t have to be this way. In pursuing geriatric dermatology, I decided early on that I wanted to make sure it was practical, so I’ve focused on maximizing shorter visits and on embracing the concept that relationships can be developed over time. Each time we meet with someone, we’re building equity to have bigger conversations later on.

I can have a 15-minute conversation about whether my patient may want to have Mohs surgery, for instance, or escalate treatment to a systemic agent for their chronic inflammatory disease. If that time isn’t enough, I can encourage further thought about treatment options, acknowledge that decisions aren’t necessarily easy, and schedule a follow-up or offer to call the patient after clinic to continue the conversation.

Sometimes, when I’m at an impasse and my patient is unsure how to proceed, I’ll use clear metrics relevant to older adults — sleep, activity level, and caregiver burden — to help my patient. If someone is not sleeping because of their lesion — if they’re so itchy or their inflammatory disease is uncontrolled, for instance — I’ll point out that the side effects of not sleeping are worse than the medications or surgery we’d pursue. If someone removes themselves from an activity due to their skin condition, that’s a red flag. And if the caregiver in the room is overwhelmed or frustrated by having to put cream on twice a day, I’ll use this to advance treatment.

 

What resources are available for dermatologists interested in improving their geriatric dermatology skills or advancing the area?

For those interested in investigating these issues or improving their practices, the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG is always welcoming of new members. The ERG will have an all-inclusive meeting at the 2025 annual AAD meeting in March.

The AAD also has educational modules on geriatric dermatology that were recently published as an initiative of our ERG. More information is available on the website. Also valuable is the ElderDerm conference hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; the second such conference takes place in May 2025.

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daniel C. Butler, MD, is associate professor of dermatology and director of the new Inflammatory and Aging Skin Research Program in the Division of Dermatology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. Before returning to Arizona, where he had attended medical school, Butler practiced and was a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and its geriatric dermatology clinic. He is a co-founder and continues to co-lead the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Geriatric Dermatology Expert Resource Group (ERG).

Butler’s interest in geriatric dermatology is rooted in his experience growing up with four grandparents and witnessing their wisdom, relationships, moments with loved ones, and other unique and desirable parts of growing old. “When I looked later at how aging was perceived in dermatology, I found it was a lot about ‘antiaging,’” he told this news organization. “I thought there was a needed voice in dermatology for healthy aging, for all the desirable things that only growing old can provide, along with all the incredible ‘antiaging’ things we can do.”

In interviews, Butler spoke about research priorities in geriatric dermatology, how the “4M” model of geriatrics should be applied within dermatology, how dermatologists can best work with older complex patients, and more. The conversation was edited for clarity and length.

 

What is geriatric dermatology? It is described by the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG as “an emerging subspecialty.” Yet it’s also viewed more broadly. Please speak about its various identities and meanings and its importance for dermatology.

I’d describe geriatric dermatology as a “supra-specialty” in theory because it encapsulates a part of many practices. If you’re a general dermatologist, about 50% of your patients are over the age of 65. If you’re a Mohs surgeon, you’re seeing a strong majority of over 65 patients. And in various specialty clinics, such as inflammatory skin disease, geriatric dermatology pertains to you. In many ways, it can be viewed as a mindset.

From a framework standpoint, and as a field, geriatric dermatology is a basic science initiative, a clinical initiative, an educational initiative, and an advocacy initiative. The goal is to be able to influence, grow, and learn in each of these categories for our older patients. This is happening: Research in this field has progressed, and education has progressed, which has driven some progress in clinical care.

 

How has research progressed in the basic science of aging skin? What are key questions for dermatology?

There has been a lot of basic science research on aging skin and on how an aging immune system, for instance, is reflected in conditions such as bullous pemphigoid, atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic itch. But aging involves more than immunosenescence. I think of aging skin as a three-headed monster that involves changes in the skin barrier and the microbiome as well. But is there a primary piece of aging in the skin? What comes first or influences the other? More research on these questions can potentially influence our treatments.

With respect to the immune system, what we’re finding in the skin is that age-related change is not a decline in the immune system per se, but rather aberrance in response. Parts of the system tend to become overactive, with a skew toward overexpression of type 2 inflammation. This can be problematic, driving conditions such as chronic itch.

With respect to the skin barrier, we lose essential fatty acids, and we lose a lot of our recovery ability and our ability to respond quickly to environmental stressors. But are barrier changes triggering the immune system? Or is it the other way around?

The microbiome, which is a big focus of research, involves similar chicken-and-egg discussions. Is it the microbiome that changes and alters the barrier, which then entices the immune system? Which one happens first? We have a lot to learn, and there’s probably not one answer for every patient.

 

Please speak about research more broadly. What questions and issues need to be answered and addressed to improve the dermatologic care of older adults?

In general, research in dermatology is very disease-specific and not particularly conducive to looking at the larger demographic populations. We have a huge opportunity, therefore, to break the mold and grow geriatric dermatology as an area of population-based research — so that geriatric dermatology research encompasses not only the melanoma researcher who’s trying to understand how aging influences the melanocytes but also the epidemiologic researcher looking at how our diagnoses and coding and prescription practices are different in the 65-plus age group.

Clinically speaking, researchers want to better understand how aging influences the clinical presentations of our diseases. And there’s research to be done on best practices. For example, what are the best practices for treating basal cell carcinomas in patients with mild cognitive impairment? How should we consider the use of topicals in a patient who has severe arthritis or who lives alone? And then how should we teach practical approaches to help providers meet people where they are?

Looking at it from a healthcare system standpoint, there are many care delivery and access issues — practical pieces — to research, and we’re getting a lot better with this. We’re also advocating not only for more inclusion of older adults in clinical trials of treatments but also for the use of evaluations and outcomes that are relevant and important for older adults.

One piece of good news is that we’re seeing safer treatment options with tremendous efficacy that target known pathways for diseases like AD and chronic itch that affect older adults. Again, now we must find ways to improve access to these novel, safe options.

Our research program at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, which we’re just getting off the ground, aims to be dual-sided, looking both at the basic science of aging skin and at access and care delivery issues, such as how to ensure that patients on Medicare have access to medications that are at least on par with others with private insurance.

 

What are the most common dermatologic problems experienced by older adults?

Based on my experience and on research that we expect to be published soon, it’s absolutely nonmelanoma skin cancers, precancers like actinic keratoses — and on the inflammatory disease side, itch, AD, and psoriasis. Of course, also common are the age-related changes to the skin that we put in the benign category, such as solar lentigines.

How does age influence dermatologic diseases from a pathophysiological and clinical standpoint?

Diseases overall are very similar and respond to the same treatments, but age in and of itself does influence little pieces. For example, there is more crossover in the presentation of psoriasis and AD in older adults, leading to delays in the diagnosis of psoriasis.

With AD, we’ve found that itch is the predominant symptom for older adults rather than the red rash. We see higher or more severe itch scores in older adults with AD with less visual changes on the skin than in younger cohorts. And rash occurs in different locations than in young patients. Older adults typically present with it on their chest, back, and across the trunk, rather than in folded areas. They’re also more likely to get it on their legs in a nummular pattern as opposed to the more traditional flexural area presentation.

 

What unique considerations need to be made in treating older adults? How should the 4M model of geriatrics be applied to dermatologic care?

Our care model pushes us to be very algorithmic, but at the end of the day, what’s really important are the 4Ms: Mobility, medication, mentation, and “what matters most.” As you’re having your shared decision-making conversations with your patients and their families, these should be your priorities.

A patient with physical limitations, for instance, may not be able to apply a topical cream twice a day all over the body. They may have comorbidities and treatments for these comorbidities that may conflict with medications you’re considering.

And then mentation is so important. For a long time, we used antihistamines for older adults, but this has been proven to be bad for their mentation and risky in other ways. We need to be sure we’re prioritizing their ability to be clear mentally when we’re prescribing medications and even when we’re considering surgical approaches. Do they show capacity for that procedure or treatment, and how will they respond to that treatment later on?

Using the 4M model to drive conversations is a way to get all of us to connect to the patient and learn about what’s most important for them. In many ways, geriatrics is about taking a step back from your specialist skills and thinking about how you would want a family member treated.

We want to avoid treating just the lesion or the pathologic diagnosis. We want to avoid the “conveyor belt” from a biopsy to Mohs. I have 95-year-olds who say, “Heck yeah, if Mohs is the best treatment, that’s what I want.” And I have 70-year-olds who say, “I think I’ll go with another option,” and that’s the right decision for them. It’s having the conversation that matters.

 

In practice, given time constraints and other confines, how can dermatologists best work with more complex older patients? What are your practical tips?

People talk about having 45-minute “golden year” conversations with their older patients, but it doesn’t have to be this way. In pursuing geriatric dermatology, I decided early on that I wanted to make sure it was practical, so I’ve focused on maximizing shorter visits and on embracing the concept that relationships can be developed over time. Each time we meet with someone, we’re building equity to have bigger conversations later on.

I can have a 15-minute conversation about whether my patient may want to have Mohs surgery, for instance, or escalate treatment to a systemic agent for their chronic inflammatory disease. If that time isn’t enough, I can encourage further thought about treatment options, acknowledge that decisions aren’t necessarily easy, and schedule a follow-up or offer to call the patient after clinic to continue the conversation.

Sometimes, when I’m at an impasse and my patient is unsure how to proceed, I’ll use clear metrics relevant to older adults — sleep, activity level, and caregiver burden — to help my patient. If someone is not sleeping because of their lesion — if they’re so itchy or their inflammatory disease is uncontrolled, for instance — I’ll point out that the side effects of not sleeping are worse than the medications or surgery we’d pursue. If someone removes themselves from an activity due to their skin condition, that’s a red flag. And if the caregiver in the room is overwhelmed or frustrated by having to put cream on twice a day, I’ll use this to advance treatment.

 

What resources are available for dermatologists interested in improving their geriatric dermatology skills or advancing the area?

For those interested in investigating these issues or improving their practices, the AAD’s Geriatric Dermatology ERG is always welcoming of new members. The ERG will have an all-inclusive meeting at the 2025 annual AAD meeting in March.

The AAD also has educational modules on geriatric dermatology that were recently published as an initiative of our ERG. More information is available on the website. Also valuable is the ElderDerm conference hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; the second such conference takes place in May 2025.

Butler reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of acne-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) identified LGBTQ+-noninclusive language in four of nine measures, with heteronormative terms used in three of six measures addressing intimate relationships. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an inductive thematic analysis of 22 PROMs for acne, identified through a PubMed search.
• LGBTQ+-inclusive language was defined per the National Institutes of Health style guide.
• The analysis included 16 PROMs: Nine were acne-specific with 56 relevant items, 4 were dermatology-specific with 28 items, and 4 were health-related with 43 items.

TAKEAWAY:

• LGBTQ+-noninclusive language was identified in four of nine acne-specific PROMs — the Acne Disability Index (ADI), Acne Quality of Life Scale (AQOL), Acne-Quality of Life (Acne-QoL), and Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI) — but not in health-related or dermatology-specific PROMs.
• Among PROMs addressing intimate relationships, three of six acne-specific measures (CADI, ADI, and Acne-QoL) used heteronormative language, while three acne-specific PROMs, three dermatology-specific PROMs, and one health-related PROM used nonheteronormative terminology (such as “partner”).
• All PROMs contained items with nongendered pronouns (such as “I” or “you” instead of “he” or “she”). However, the AQOL included gendered language (“brothers” and “sisters,” rather than “siblings”).
• Two acne-specific PROMs demonstrated partial LGBTQ+ inclusivity, incorporating some but not all LGBTQ+ identities.

IN PRACTICE:

“Using LGBTQ+-inclusive language may promote the acquisition of accurate and relevant data for patient care and clinical trials and even enhance patient-clinician relationships,” the authors of the study wrote. “While demographics such as sex, age, race, and ethnicity are commonly considered during patient-reported outcome development and validation,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, the study highlights that “sexual orientation and gender identity should also be considered to ensure these measures have similar performance across diverse populations.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Twan Sia, BA, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine in California. The authors of the editorial were John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Mya L. Roberson, MSPH, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited to the analysis of only English-language PROMs. 

DISCLOSURES:

Two study authors disclosed receiving grants or personal fees from various sources, including pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Barbieri disclosed receiving consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew Care; Roberson disclosed receiving consulting fees from the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

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

TOPLINE:

An analysis of acne-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) identified LGBTQ+-noninclusive language in four of nine measures, with heteronormative terms used in three of six measures addressing intimate relationships. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an inductive thematic analysis of 22 PROMs for acne, identified through a PubMed search.
• LGBTQ+-inclusive language was defined per the National Institutes of Health style guide.
• The analysis included 16 PROMs: Nine were acne-specific with 56 relevant items, 4 were dermatology-specific with 28 items, and 4 were health-related with 43 items.

TAKEAWAY:

• LGBTQ+-noninclusive language was identified in four of nine acne-specific PROMs — the Acne Disability Index (ADI), Acne Quality of Life Scale (AQOL), Acne-Quality of Life (Acne-QoL), and Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI) — but not in health-related or dermatology-specific PROMs.
• Among PROMs addressing intimate relationships, three of six acne-specific measures (CADI, ADI, and Acne-QoL) used heteronormative language, while three acne-specific PROMs, three dermatology-specific PROMs, and one health-related PROM used nonheteronormative terminology (such as “partner”).
• All PROMs contained items with nongendered pronouns (such as “I” or “you” instead of “he” or “she”). However, the AQOL included gendered language (“brothers” and “sisters,” rather than “siblings”).
• Two acne-specific PROMs demonstrated partial LGBTQ+ inclusivity, incorporating some but not all LGBTQ+ identities.

IN PRACTICE:

“Using LGBTQ+-inclusive language may promote the acquisition of accurate and relevant data for patient care and clinical trials and even enhance patient-clinician relationships,” the authors of the study wrote. “While demographics such as sex, age, race, and ethnicity are commonly considered during patient-reported outcome development and validation,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, the study highlights that “sexual orientation and gender identity should also be considered to ensure these measures have similar performance across diverse populations.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Twan Sia, BA, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine in California. The authors of the editorial were John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Mya L. Roberson, MSPH, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited to the analysis of only English-language PROMs. 

DISCLOSURES:

Two study authors disclosed receiving grants or personal fees from various sources, including pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Barbieri disclosed receiving consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew Care; Roberson disclosed receiving consulting fees from the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

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

TOPLINE:

An analysis of acne-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) identified LGBTQ+-noninclusive language in four of nine measures, with heteronormative terms used in three of six measures addressing intimate relationships. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an inductive thematic analysis of 22 PROMs for acne, identified through a PubMed search.
• LGBTQ+-inclusive language was defined per the National Institutes of Health style guide.
• The analysis included 16 PROMs: Nine were acne-specific with 56 relevant items, 4 were dermatology-specific with 28 items, and 4 were health-related with 43 items.

TAKEAWAY:

• LGBTQ+-noninclusive language was identified in four of nine acne-specific PROMs — the Acne Disability Index (ADI), Acne Quality of Life Scale (AQOL), Acne-Quality of Life (Acne-QoL), and Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI) — but not in health-related or dermatology-specific PROMs.
• Among PROMs addressing intimate relationships, three of six acne-specific measures (CADI, ADI, and Acne-QoL) used heteronormative language, while three acne-specific PROMs, three dermatology-specific PROMs, and one health-related PROM used nonheteronormative terminology (such as “partner”).
• All PROMs contained items with nongendered pronouns (such as “I” or “you” instead of “he” or “she”). However, the AQOL included gendered language (“brothers” and “sisters,” rather than “siblings”).
• Two acne-specific PROMs demonstrated partial LGBTQ+ inclusivity, incorporating some but not all LGBTQ+ identities.

IN PRACTICE:

“Using LGBTQ+-inclusive language may promote the acquisition of accurate and relevant data for patient care and clinical trials and even enhance patient-clinician relationships,” the authors of the study wrote. “While demographics such as sex, age, race, and ethnicity are commonly considered during patient-reported outcome development and validation,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, the study highlights that “sexual orientation and gender identity should also be considered to ensure these measures have similar performance across diverse populations.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Twan Sia, BA, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine in California. The authors of the editorial were John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Mya L. Roberson, MSPH, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited to the analysis of only English-language PROMs. 

DISCLOSURES:

Two study authors disclosed receiving grants or personal fees from various sources, including pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Barbieri disclosed receiving consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew Care; Roberson disclosed receiving consulting fees from the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

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

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Candida auris, a yeast-like fungus, is spreading globally, increasing the urgency for enhanced surveillance, new therapies, and more antimicrobial stewardship to combat its multidrug-resistant strains.

Since its discovery in 2009, C auris has been found in more than 50 countries across six continents, including Asia, Africa, and the Americas, according to the World Health Organization. In 2022, CDC reported 2377 clinical cases and 5754 screening cases of C auris in the United States.

Most fungi cannot infect humans because they cannot grow at 98 °F. But as the world warms, some fungi like C auris are adapting — and infecting humans. 

In September, The Lancet Microbe reported on three C auris isolates from a Singapore hospital belonging to a new clade (clade six), “which is phenotypically and genotypically distinct” from the first five clades, the authors wrote. In June, Microbiology Spectrum published a study about two unusual C auris isolates from a Bangladesh NICU in 2021. They were also assigned to clade six “with potential for international transmission,” the study authors noted.

C auris has all the hallmarks of “critical pathogen,” as defined by the World Health Organization in 2022. It increases morbidity and mortality for affected patients, is difficult to eradicate in hospitals, and can be treatment resistant.

As a result, infectious disease specialists are raising more awareness and advocating for greater surveillance of C auris colonization and disease in the hospital setting for high-risk patients.

Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, MS, is one of them. “C auris could be a problem in your hospital as fungal diseases are getting worse every year,” said Casadevall, chair of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The increasing number of cases “is incremental, but when [we] look at the data over years, it is a growing problem. We may see more of these cases in the coming years.”

 

Expediting Diagnoses

Symptoms of C auris disease vary and can cause invasive infections, such as bloodstream or intra-abdominal infections. This is why Casadevall encourages infectious disease specialists to “always consider fungal disease when you are approaching an individual. The diagnosis is sometimes delayed because you don’t look for it,” he said.

C auris can also be misidentified in the lab “when using traditional biochemical methods for yeast identification. Accurate identification of C auris requires use of sequencing or mass spectrometry,” according to CDC.

C auris is typically found on the skin of colonized patients and can enter the body through invasive devices, incisions, wounds, and during surgery. Mostly, immunosuppressed patients are at risk for serious fungal disease, Casadevall said.

Invasive fungal disease can be life-threatening for hospitalized patients. In one review of 37 studies from 2011 to 2021, researchers found that overall mortality rates for C auris infections ranged from 29% to 62%, with 30-day mortality rates between 23% and 67%, Medical Mycology reported. Patients typically had a median hospital stay of 46-68 days, sometimes extending up to 140 days. Late-onset complications included metastatic septic issues, according to the study.  

 

Overcoming Treatment-Resistant Strains

A resilient yeast, C auris shows higher resistance to antifungal treatments compared to other Candida species, JAMA reported. Echinocandins are the first-line treatment for adults and children over 2 months old “and some of those therapies are already resistant,” said George Thompson, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California. The second line is liposomal amphotericin B (5 mg/kg daily), but it has toxicity problems, Thompson said.

New therapies sans toxicity are needed to treat C auris disease. Thompson, eg, served as the principal investigator in the ReSTORE trial to study a new therapy (rezafungin for injection). In March 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the treatment for candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults with limited or no alternative treatment options.

Thompson has observed that patients with C auris disease can present with “an infection in the urinary system with burning, pain, and bladder spasms. In the majority of cases of candida sepsis, the patients will have it in their blood stream with fever, chills, and sweats,” he said. The new treatment may clear the infection quickly, said Thompson, who noted results published in The Lancet. 

 

Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship

Institutions like University of Michigan Health (U-M Health) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, have increased measures to tackle the issue from different angles. 

To address the broader issue of treatment-resistant fungal disease, U-M Health “has a robust antimicrobial stewardship program in place,” said Laraine Lynn Washer, MD, infectious disease physician.

The program includes oversight and restriction of various antifungals to avoid potential for overuse that could lead to increased risk for antifungal resistance. Use of echinocandins, for example, “requires prior approval by our antimicrobial stewardship team members,” said Washer, who is also Clinical Professor of Infectious Diseases and the Medical Director of Infection Prevention of Epidemiology at U-M Health.

Infection prevention measures entail screening hospitalized adult patients for risk factors for C auris, such as:

• Overnight international hospitalization
• Recent stay in a long-term acute care facility
• Recent stay in a ventilator skilled nursing facility.

“If a patient has these risk factors, we perform testing to assess for colonization (presence of C auris without infection) by obtaining skin swabs from the axilla and the groin and asking our lab to perform PCR to identify genetic elements of C auris,” Washer said. “Patients who are transferred directly from another hospital ICU to our ICU also undergo testing for colonization.”

If a patient is identified with C auris, hospitals ought to perform screening tests using cultures or PCR “on other patients who may have overlapped in time and space with the patient such as hospital roommates,” Washer explained. 

Once in a hospital environment, the pathogen is hard to eradicate. C auris has a unique ability to be transmitted in the healthcare environment, is relatively heat tolerant, and is resistant to some common disinfectants, Washer added. The yeast can survive for over 2 weeks on plastic and months on skin, JAMA reported.

“Hospitals should partner with local and state level public health authorities in reporting cases of Candida auris and assist in any contact investigations as requested by public health authorities,” Washer advised.

Casadevall and Washer reported no conflicts of interest. Thompson has consulted and received research funding from Astellas, Basilea, Cidara, F2G, GSK, Melinta, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Scynexis.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Candida auris, a yeast-like fungus, is spreading globally, increasing the urgency for enhanced surveillance, new therapies, and more antimicrobial stewardship to combat its multidrug-resistant strains.

Since its discovery in 2009, C auris has been found in more than 50 countries across six continents, including Asia, Africa, and the Americas, according to the World Health Organization. In 2022, CDC reported 2377 clinical cases and 5754 screening cases of C auris in the United States.

Most fungi cannot infect humans because they cannot grow at 98 °F. But as the world warms, some fungi like C auris are adapting — and infecting humans. 

In September, The Lancet Microbe reported on three C auris isolates from a Singapore hospital belonging to a new clade (clade six), “which is phenotypically and genotypically distinct” from the first five clades, the authors wrote. In June, Microbiology Spectrum published a study about two unusual C auris isolates from a Bangladesh NICU in 2021. They were also assigned to clade six “with potential for international transmission,” the study authors noted.

C auris has all the hallmarks of “critical pathogen,” as defined by the World Health Organization in 2022. It increases morbidity and mortality for affected patients, is difficult to eradicate in hospitals, and can be treatment resistant.

As a result, infectious disease specialists are raising more awareness and advocating for greater surveillance of C auris colonization and disease in the hospital setting for high-risk patients.

Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, MS, is one of them. “C auris could be a problem in your hospital as fungal diseases are getting worse every year,” said Casadevall, chair of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The increasing number of cases “is incremental, but when [we] look at the data over years, it is a growing problem. We may see more of these cases in the coming years.”

 

Expediting Diagnoses

Symptoms of C auris disease vary and can cause invasive infections, such as bloodstream or intra-abdominal infections. This is why Casadevall encourages infectious disease specialists to “always consider fungal disease when you are approaching an individual. The diagnosis is sometimes delayed because you don’t look for it,” he said.

C auris can also be misidentified in the lab “when using traditional biochemical methods for yeast identification. Accurate identification of C auris requires use of sequencing or mass spectrometry,” according to CDC.

C auris is typically found on the skin of colonized patients and can enter the body through invasive devices, incisions, wounds, and during surgery. Mostly, immunosuppressed patients are at risk for serious fungal disease, Casadevall said.

Invasive fungal disease can be life-threatening for hospitalized patients. In one review of 37 studies from 2011 to 2021, researchers found that overall mortality rates for C auris infections ranged from 29% to 62%, with 30-day mortality rates between 23% and 67%, Medical Mycology reported. Patients typically had a median hospital stay of 46-68 days, sometimes extending up to 140 days. Late-onset complications included metastatic septic issues, according to the study.  

 

Overcoming Treatment-Resistant Strains

A resilient yeast, C auris shows higher resistance to antifungal treatments compared to other Candida species, JAMA reported. Echinocandins are the first-line treatment for adults and children over 2 months old “and some of those therapies are already resistant,” said George Thompson, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California. The second line is liposomal amphotericin B (5 mg/kg daily), but it has toxicity problems, Thompson said.

New therapies sans toxicity are needed to treat C auris disease. Thompson, eg, served as the principal investigator in the ReSTORE trial to study a new therapy (rezafungin for injection). In March 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the treatment for candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults with limited or no alternative treatment options.

Thompson has observed that patients with C auris disease can present with “an infection in the urinary system with burning, pain, and bladder spasms. In the majority of cases of candida sepsis, the patients will have it in their blood stream with fever, chills, and sweats,” he said. The new treatment may clear the infection quickly, said Thompson, who noted results published in The Lancet. 

 

Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship

Institutions like University of Michigan Health (U-M Health) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, have increased measures to tackle the issue from different angles. 

To address the broader issue of treatment-resistant fungal disease, U-M Health “has a robust antimicrobial stewardship program in place,” said Laraine Lynn Washer, MD, infectious disease physician.

The program includes oversight and restriction of various antifungals to avoid potential for overuse that could lead to increased risk for antifungal resistance. Use of echinocandins, for example, “requires prior approval by our antimicrobial stewardship team members,” said Washer, who is also Clinical Professor of Infectious Diseases and the Medical Director of Infection Prevention of Epidemiology at U-M Health.

Infection prevention measures entail screening hospitalized adult patients for risk factors for C auris, such as:

• Overnight international hospitalization
• Recent stay in a long-term acute care facility
• Recent stay in a ventilator skilled nursing facility.

“If a patient has these risk factors, we perform testing to assess for colonization (presence of C auris without infection) by obtaining skin swabs from the axilla and the groin and asking our lab to perform PCR to identify genetic elements of C auris,” Washer said. “Patients who are transferred directly from another hospital ICU to our ICU also undergo testing for colonization.”

If a patient is identified with C auris, hospitals ought to perform screening tests using cultures or PCR “on other patients who may have overlapped in time and space with the patient such as hospital roommates,” Washer explained. 

Once in a hospital environment, the pathogen is hard to eradicate. C auris has a unique ability to be transmitted in the healthcare environment, is relatively heat tolerant, and is resistant to some common disinfectants, Washer added. The yeast can survive for over 2 weeks on plastic and months on skin, JAMA reported.

“Hospitals should partner with local and state level public health authorities in reporting cases of Candida auris and assist in any contact investigations as requested by public health authorities,” Washer advised.

Casadevall and Washer reported no conflicts of interest. Thompson has consulted and received research funding from Astellas, Basilea, Cidara, F2G, GSK, Melinta, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Scynexis.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Candida auris, a yeast-like fungus, is spreading globally, increasing the urgency for enhanced surveillance, new therapies, and more antimicrobial stewardship to combat its multidrug-resistant strains.

Since its discovery in 2009, C auris has been found in more than 50 countries across six continents, including Asia, Africa, and the Americas, according to the World Health Organization. In 2022, CDC reported 2377 clinical cases and 5754 screening cases of C auris in the United States.

Most fungi cannot infect humans because they cannot grow at 98 °F. But as the world warms, some fungi like C auris are adapting — and infecting humans. 

In September, The Lancet Microbe reported on three C auris isolates from a Singapore hospital belonging to a new clade (clade six), “which is phenotypically and genotypically distinct” from the first five clades, the authors wrote. In June, Microbiology Spectrum published a study about two unusual C auris isolates from a Bangladesh NICU in 2021. They were also assigned to clade six “with potential for international transmission,” the study authors noted.

C auris has all the hallmarks of “critical pathogen,” as defined by the World Health Organization in 2022. It increases morbidity and mortality for affected patients, is difficult to eradicate in hospitals, and can be treatment resistant.

As a result, infectious disease specialists are raising more awareness and advocating for greater surveillance of C auris colonization and disease in the hospital setting for high-risk patients.

Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, MS, is one of them. “C auris could be a problem in your hospital as fungal diseases are getting worse every year,” said Casadevall, chair of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The increasing number of cases “is incremental, but when [we] look at the data over years, it is a growing problem. We may see more of these cases in the coming years.”

 

Expediting Diagnoses

Symptoms of C auris disease vary and can cause invasive infections, such as bloodstream or intra-abdominal infections. This is why Casadevall encourages infectious disease specialists to “always consider fungal disease when you are approaching an individual. The diagnosis is sometimes delayed because you don’t look for it,” he said.

C auris can also be misidentified in the lab “when using traditional biochemical methods for yeast identification. Accurate identification of C auris requires use of sequencing or mass spectrometry,” according to CDC.

C auris is typically found on the skin of colonized patients and can enter the body through invasive devices, incisions, wounds, and during surgery. Mostly, immunosuppressed patients are at risk for serious fungal disease, Casadevall said.

Invasive fungal disease can be life-threatening for hospitalized patients. In one review of 37 studies from 2011 to 2021, researchers found that overall mortality rates for C auris infections ranged from 29% to 62%, with 30-day mortality rates between 23% and 67%, Medical Mycology reported. Patients typically had a median hospital stay of 46-68 days, sometimes extending up to 140 days. Late-onset complications included metastatic septic issues, according to the study.  

 

Overcoming Treatment-Resistant Strains

A resilient yeast, C auris shows higher resistance to antifungal treatments compared to other Candida species, JAMA reported. Echinocandins are the first-line treatment for adults and children over 2 months old “and some of those therapies are already resistant,” said George Thompson, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California. The second line is liposomal amphotericin B (5 mg/kg daily), but it has toxicity problems, Thompson said.

New therapies sans toxicity are needed to treat C auris disease. Thompson, eg, served as the principal investigator in the ReSTORE trial to study a new therapy (rezafungin for injection). In March 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the treatment for candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults with limited or no alternative treatment options.

Thompson has observed that patients with C auris disease can present with “an infection in the urinary system with burning, pain, and bladder spasms. In the majority of cases of candida sepsis, the patients will have it in their blood stream with fever, chills, and sweats,” he said. The new treatment may clear the infection quickly, said Thompson, who noted results published in The Lancet. 

 

Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship

Institutions like University of Michigan Health (U-M Health) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, have increased measures to tackle the issue from different angles. 

To address the broader issue of treatment-resistant fungal disease, U-M Health “has a robust antimicrobial stewardship program in place,” said Laraine Lynn Washer, MD, infectious disease physician.

The program includes oversight and restriction of various antifungals to avoid potential for overuse that could lead to increased risk for antifungal resistance. Use of echinocandins, for example, “requires prior approval by our antimicrobial stewardship team members,” said Washer, who is also Clinical Professor of Infectious Diseases and the Medical Director of Infection Prevention of Epidemiology at U-M Health.

Infection prevention measures entail screening hospitalized adult patients for risk factors for C auris, such as:

• Overnight international hospitalization
• Recent stay in a long-term acute care facility
• Recent stay in a ventilator skilled nursing facility.

“If a patient has these risk factors, we perform testing to assess for colonization (presence of C auris without infection) by obtaining skin swabs from the axilla and the groin and asking our lab to perform PCR to identify genetic elements of C auris,” Washer said. “Patients who are transferred directly from another hospital ICU to our ICU also undergo testing for colonization.”

If a patient is identified with C auris, hospitals ought to perform screening tests using cultures or PCR “on other patients who may have overlapped in time and space with the patient such as hospital roommates,” Washer explained. 

Once in a hospital environment, the pathogen is hard to eradicate. C auris has a unique ability to be transmitted in the healthcare environment, is relatively heat tolerant, and is resistant to some common disinfectants, Washer added. The yeast can survive for over 2 weeks on plastic and months on skin, JAMA reported.

“Hospitals should partner with local and state level public health authorities in reporting cases of Candida auris and assist in any contact investigations as requested by public health authorities,” Washer advised.

Casadevall and Washer reported no conflicts of interest. Thompson has consulted and received research funding from Astellas, Basilea, Cidara, F2G, GSK, Melinta, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Scynexis.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.