High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

Among 1,065 adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) who were surveyed about their condition, no single element of disease burden, including sleep, stood out as having a strong association with overall disease burden. However, AD severity and spending 11 hours or more per week managing the condition did correlate with higher overall disease burden.

“Research has documented the disease burden of AD, including its visible nature and the effect on itch and sleep, but knowledge gaps remain,” Aaron M. Drucker, MD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in the study published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Gaps include a poor understanding of symptoms other than itch, patients’ treatment experience, and how different elements of burden of disease interact.”

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Dr. Drucker and colleagues collected data from an externally led patient-focused drug development survey on AD, a 32-item questionnaire that was administered electronically between Aug. 1, 2019, and Oct. 11, 2019. Respondents were asked to rate the overall impact of their AD in the past months and the specific elements of disease burden on a 1-5 scale, with 1 meaning no impact, and 5 meaning a significant impact. They were also asked to rate current mood changes and mood changes at the worst point of AD on a 4-point scale that ranged from “not present” to “severe.” The researchers used multivariable ordinal regression to examine associations between demographic and clinical variables and patient-reported overall AD impact scores.
 

Survey results

Of the 1,065 respondents, 33% were aged 18-34 years, 50% were aged 35-50 years, 17% were aged 65 years or older, and 83% were female. Nearly half (45%) reported having moderate AD, while 28% had severe AD. When asked about the overall disease burden of AD symptoms in the past month, 30% reported a significant impact on life, 28% reported a moderate impact score, 21% reported a high impact score, 18% reported a low impact score, and 3% of respondents reported no impact.

In the multivariable proportional odds analysis, moderate AD (odds ratio [OR], 4.13) and severe AD (OR, 13.63) were both associated with greater disease burden compared with mild AD. Also, spending 11 or more hours per week managing AD symptoms was associated with greater disease burden compared with 0 to 4 hours (an OR of 2.67 for 11-20 hours per week spent managing AD and OR of 5.34 for 21 or more hours per week spent managing AD).

Correlations between specific impact domains such as sleep, cognitive thinking, and physical activity and overall AD impact scores ranged from weak to moderate, and no individual aspect of disease burden correlated strongly with overall impact scores. The researchers observed similar results after they stratified the analysis by age, current severity, and time spent managing AD.

In other findings, 40% of study participants reported mild changes in mood related to their AD, 30% reported moderate changes, 9% reported severe changes, while the remainder reported no changes in mood. The variable most strongly associated with current mood changes was having severe AD at the time of the survey (OR 5.29).
 

Understanding of disease burden ‘limited’

“Atopic dermatitis is associated with an immense clinical burden,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, our understanding of disease burden from the patient perspective is limited,” he added.

“Interestingly, no single specific element of disease burden was strongly correlated with overall burden, further supporting the complex, multidimensional nature” of the impact of AD, he said, noting that the study “highlights the need for clinicians to look beyond the skin when it comes to AD and underscores the need for additional research to better understand the patient and caregiver perspective.”

Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was also asked to comment on the study, noted that aside from the well discussed impact and burden of itch and its impact on sleep loss, much remains to be learned about the full impact of AD, particularly among adults.

“For example, it is commonly accepted and expected that patients with more severe AD likely experience higher disease burden, but are there other factors that can influence this risk?” she asked. “Can we explain the high impact of AD disease aside from the level of disease severity, particularly among adults with AD?”

The study, she added, “is important because it provides additional insights into those possible factors, including ‘time spent managing their disease’ and ‘associated depression.’ In particular, understanding the association between ‘time spent managing their disease’ and higher disease burden is critical because, in my opinion, it emphasizes the need to develop better strategies for improving the care of patients with AD including the development of more efficacious and safer treatment strategies.”

Dr. Drucker and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its cross-sectional design, the potential for selection bias, and the fact that it did not use the patient-oriented outcome measure or the dermatology life quality index. “Further work to address the complex burden of AD, including strategies to reduce time spent managing AD, and understanding the fullness of the patient experience is needed,” they concluded.

The work was supported in part by a grant from the National Eczema Association (NEA). Dr. Drucker reported that he receives compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (as reviewer and section editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), and NEA (grant reviewer). Coauthors representing the NEA and other patient organizations including the Allergy & Asthma Network, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, and International Topical Steroid Awareness Network received organizational grants (Pfizer) and sponsorship funding for these analyses from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he has served as an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, EPI Health, Incyte, L’Oréal, the NEA, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she has received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, and Vanda for work related to AD She has served as consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, NEA, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer; and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Among 1,065 adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) who were surveyed about their condition, no single element of disease burden, including sleep, stood out as having a strong association with overall disease burden. However, AD severity and spending 11 hours or more per week managing the condition did correlate with higher overall disease burden.

“Research has documented the disease burden of AD, including its visible nature and the effect on itch and sleep, but knowledge gaps remain,” Aaron M. Drucker, MD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in the study published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Gaps include a poor understanding of symptoms other than itch, patients’ treatment experience, and how different elements of burden of disease interact.”

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Dr. Drucker and colleagues collected data from an externally led patient-focused drug development survey on AD, a 32-item questionnaire that was administered electronically between Aug. 1, 2019, and Oct. 11, 2019. Respondents were asked to rate the overall impact of their AD in the past months and the specific elements of disease burden on a 1-5 scale, with 1 meaning no impact, and 5 meaning a significant impact. They were also asked to rate current mood changes and mood changes at the worst point of AD on a 4-point scale that ranged from “not present” to “severe.” The researchers used multivariable ordinal regression to examine associations between demographic and clinical variables and patient-reported overall AD impact scores.
 

Survey results

Of the 1,065 respondents, 33% were aged 18-34 years, 50% were aged 35-50 years, 17% were aged 65 years or older, and 83% were female. Nearly half (45%) reported having moderate AD, while 28% had severe AD. When asked about the overall disease burden of AD symptoms in the past month, 30% reported a significant impact on life, 28% reported a moderate impact score, 21% reported a high impact score, 18% reported a low impact score, and 3% of respondents reported no impact.

In the multivariable proportional odds analysis, moderate AD (odds ratio [OR], 4.13) and severe AD (OR, 13.63) were both associated with greater disease burden compared with mild AD. Also, spending 11 or more hours per week managing AD symptoms was associated with greater disease burden compared with 0 to 4 hours (an OR of 2.67 for 11-20 hours per week spent managing AD and OR of 5.34 for 21 or more hours per week spent managing AD).

Correlations between specific impact domains such as sleep, cognitive thinking, and physical activity and overall AD impact scores ranged from weak to moderate, and no individual aspect of disease burden correlated strongly with overall impact scores. The researchers observed similar results after they stratified the analysis by age, current severity, and time spent managing AD.

In other findings, 40% of study participants reported mild changes in mood related to their AD, 30% reported moderate changes, 9% reported severe changes, while the remainder reported no changes in mood. The variable most strongly associated with current mood changes was having severe AD at the time of the survey (OR 5.29).
 

Understanding of disease burden ‘limited’

“Atopic dermatitis is associated with an immense clinical burden,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, our understanding of disease burden from the patient perspective is limited,” he added.

“Interestingly, no single specific element of disease burden was strongly correlated with overall burden, further supporting the complex, multidimensional nature” of the impact of AD, he said, noting that the study “highlights the need for clinicians to look beyond the skin when it comes to AD and underscores the need for additional research to better understand the patient and caregiver perspective.”

Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was also asked to comment on the study, noted that aside from the well discussed impact and burden of itch and its impact on sleep loss, much remains to be learned about the full impact of AD, particularly among adults.

“For example, it is commonly accepted and expected that patients with more severe AD likely experience higher disease burden, but are there other factors that can influence this risk?” she asked. “Can we explain the high impact of AD disease aside from the level of disease severity, particularly among adults with AD?”

The study, she added, “is important because it provides additional insights into those possible factors, including ‘time spent managing their disease’ and ‘associated depression.’ In particular, understanding the association between ‘time spent managing their disease’ and higher disease burden is critical because, in my opinion, it emphasizes the need to develop better strategies for improving the care of patients with AD including the development of more efficacious and safer treatment strategies.”

Dr. Drucker and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its cross-sectional design, the potential for selection bias, and the fact that it did not use the patient-oriented outcome measure or the dermatology life quality index. “Further work to address the complex burden of AD, including strategies to reduce time spent managing AD, and understanding the fullness of the patient experience is needed,” they concluded.

The work was supported in part by a grant from the National Eczema Association (NEA). Dr. Drucker reported that he receives compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (as reviewer and section editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), and NEA (grant reviewer). Coauthors representing the NEA and other patient organizations including the Allergy & Asthma Network, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, and International Topical Steroid Awareness Network received organizational grants (Pfizer) and sponsorship funding for these analyses from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he has served as an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, EPI Health, Incyte, L’Oréal, the NEA, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she has received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, and Vanda for work related to AD She has served as consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, NEA, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer; and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Among 1,065 adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) who were surveyed about their condition, no single element of disease burden, including sleep, stood out as having a strong association with overall disease burden. However, AD severity and spending 11 hours or more per week managing the condition did correlate with higher overall disease burden.

“Research has documented the disease burden of AD, including its visible nature and the effect on itch and sleep, but knowledge gaps remain,” Aaron M. Drucker, MD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in the study published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Gaps include a poor understanding of symptoms other than itch, patients’ treatment experience, and how different elements of burden of disease interact.”

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Dr. Drucker and colleagues collected data from an externally led patient-focused drug development survey on AD, a 32-item questionnaire that was administered electronically between Aug. 1, 2019, and Oct. 11, 2019. Respondents were asked to rate the overall impact of their AD in the past months and the specific elements of disease burden on a 1-5 scale, with 1 meaning no impact, and 5 meaning a significant impact. They were also asked to rate current mood changes and mood changes at the worst point of AD on a 4-point scale that ranged from “not present” to “severe.” The researchers used multivariable ordinal regression to examine associations between demographic and clinical variables and patient-reported overall AD impact scores.
 

Survey results

Of the 1,065 respondents, 33% were aged 18-34 years, 50% were aged 35-50 years, 17% were aged 65 years or older, and 83% were female. Nearly half (45%) reported having moderate AD, while 28% had severe AD. When asked about the overall disease burden of AD symptoms in the past month, 30% reported a significant impact on life, 28% reported a moderate impact score, 21% reported a high impact score, 18% reported a low impact score, and 3% of respondents reported no impact.

In the multivariable proportional odds analysis, moderate AD (odds ratio [OR], 4.13) and severe AD (OR, 13.63) were both associated with greater disease burden compared with mild AD. Also, spending 11 or more hours per week managing AD symptoms was associated with greater disease burden compared with 0 to 4 hours (an OR of 2.67 for 11-20 hours per week spent managing AD and OR of 5.34 for 21 or more hours per week spent managing AD).

Correlations between specific impact domains such as sleep, cognitive thinking, and physical activity and overall AD impact scores ranged from weak to moderate, and no individual aspect of disease burden correlated strongly with overall impact scores. The researchers observed similar results after they stratified the analysis by age, current severity, and time spent managing AD.

In other findings, 40% of study participants reported mild changes in mood related to their AD, 30% reported moderate changes, 9% reported severe changes, while the remainder reported no changes in mood. The variable most strongly associated with current mood changes was having severe AD at the time of the survey (OR 5.29).
 

Understanding of disease burden ‘limited’

“Atopic dermatitis is associated with an immense clinical burden,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, our understanding of disease burden from the patient perspective is limited,” he added.

“Interestingly, no single specific element of disease burden was strongly correlated with overall burden, further supporting the complex, multidimensional nature” of the impact of AD, he said, noting that the study “highlights the need for clinicians to look beyond the skin when it comes to AD and underscores the need for additional research to better understand the patient and caregiver perspective.”

Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was also asked to comment on the study, noted that aside from the well discussed impact and burden of itch and its impact on sleep loss, much remains to be learned about the full impact of AD, particularly among adults.

“For example, it is commonly accepted and expected that patients with more severe AD likely experience higher disease burden, but are there other factors that can influence this risk?” she asked. “Can we explain the high impact of AD disease aside from the level of disease severity, particularly among adults with AD?”

The study, she added, “is important because it provides additional insights into those possible factors, including ‘time spent managing their disease’ and ‘associated depression.’ In particular, understanding the association between ‘time spent managing their disease’ and higher disease burden is critical because, in my opinion, it emphasizes the need to develop better strategies for improving the care of patients with AD including the development of more efficacious and safer treatment strategies.”

Dr. Drucker and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its cross-sectional design, the potential for selection bias, and the fact that it did not use the patient-oriented outcome measure or the dermatology life quality index. “Further work to address the complex burden of AD, including strategies to reduce time spent managing AD, and understanding the fullness of the patient experience is needed,” they concluded.

The work was supported in part by a grant from the National Eczema Association (NEA). Dr. Drucker reported that he receives compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (as reviewer and section editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), and NEA (grant reviewer). Coauthors representing the NEA and other patient organizations including the Allergy & Asthma Network, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, and International Topical Steroid Awareness Network received organizational grants (Pfizer) and sponsorship funding for these analyses from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he has served as an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, EPI Health, Incyte, L’Oréal, the NEA, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she has received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, and Vanda for work related to AD She has served as consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, NEA, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer; and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

INDIANAPOLIS – Among children and adolescents diagnosed with melanoma, females had higher rates of superficial spreading disease, while males were more frequently affected by nodular melanoma.

In addition, male gender was independently associated with increased mortality, but age was not.

Those are key findings from a retrospective cohort analysis of nearly 5,000 records from the National Cancer Database.

“There are multiple studies from primarily adult populations showing females with melanoma have a different presentation and better outcomes than males,” co-first author Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview with this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session. “However, because melanoma is so rare in younger patients, little is known about gender differences in presentation and survival in pediatric and adolescent patients. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies to date in this population, and the first to explore gender differences in detail in pediatric and adolescent patients with melanoma.”

Working with co-first author Sabrina Dahak, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, Dr. Thiede and colleagues retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database to identify biopsy-confirmed invasive primary cutaneous melanoma cases diagnosed in patients 0-21 years of age between 2004 and 2018. The search yielded 4,645 cases, and the researchers used American Academy of Pediatrics definitions to categorize the patients by age, from infancy (birth to 2 years), to childhood (3-10 years), early adolescence (11-14 years), middle adolescence (15-17 years), and late adolescence (18-21 years). They used the Kaplan Meier analysis to determine overall survival and multivariate Cox regression to determine independent survival predictors.

Of the 4,645 pediatric melanoma cases, 63.4% were in females and 36.6% were in males, a difference that was significant (P < .001). Dr. Thiede and colleagues also observed a significant relationship between primary site and gender (P < .001). Primary sites included the trunk (34.3% of females vs. 32.9% of males, respectively), head and neck (16.4% vs. 30.9%), upper extremities (19.5% vs. 16%), lower extremities (27.9% vs. 16.5%), and “unspecified” (1.9% vs. 3.7%).

Females had higher rates of superficial spreading melanoma while males were affected by nodular melanoma more often. For example, the median Breslow depth was higher for males (1.05 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 0.50-2.31) than for females (0.80 mm; IQR, 0.40-1.67; P < .001).

Although females accounted for a higher percentage of cases than males overall, from birth to 17 years, a higher percentage of males than females were found to have later stage of melanoma at time of diagnosis: Females were more likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease (67.8%) than were males (53.6%), and males were more likely than were females to be diagnosed with stages II (15.9% vs. 12.3%), III (27.1% vs. 18.3%), and IV disease (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P < .001 for all).

In other findings, the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were higher for females (95.9% and 93.9%, respectively) than for males (92.0% vs. 86.7%, respectively; P < .001). However, by age group, overall survival rates were similar between females and males among infants, children, and those in early adolescence – but not for those in middle adolescence (96.7% vs. 91.9%; P < .001) or late adolescence (95.7% vs. 90.4%; P < .001).

When the researchers adjusted for confounding variables, male gender was independently associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.37; P < .001), but age was not.

“It was particularly surprising to see that even at such a young age, there is a significant difference in overall survival between males and females, where females have better outcomes than males,” Dr. Thiede said. “When examining pediatric and adolescent patients, it is essential to maintain cutaneous melanoma on the differential,” she advised. “It is important for clinicians to perform a thorough exam at annual visits particularly for those at high risk for melanoma to catch this rare but potentially devastating diagnosis.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on one database, “as comparing multiple databases would strengthen the conclusions,” she said. “There was some missing data present in our dataset, and a large percentage of the histologic subtypes were unspecified, both of which are common issues with cancer registries. An additional limitation is related to the low death rates in adolescent and pediatric patients, which may impact the analysis related to survival and independent predictors of survival.”

Asked to comment on the study results, Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said that the finding that males were more likely to present with stage II or higher disease compared with females “could be related to their finding that females had more superficial spreading melanomas, whereas males had more nodular melanoma.” Those differences “could influence how providers evaluate melanocytic lesions in children,” she added.

Dr. Coughlin, who directs the pediatric dermatology fellowship at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said it was “interesting” that the authors found no association between older age and an increased risk of death. “It would be helpful to have more data about melanoma subtype, including information about Spitz or Spitzoid melanomas,” she said. “Also, knowing the distribution of melanoma across the age categories could provide more insight into their data.”

Ms. Dahak received an award from the National Cancer Institute to fund travel for presentation of this study at the SPD meeting. No other financial conflicts were reported by the researchers. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Among children and adolescents diagnosed with melanoma, females had higher rates of superficial spreading disease, while males were more frequently affected by nodular melanoma.

In addition, male gender was independently associated with increased mortality, but age was not.

Those are key findings from a retrospective cohort analysis of nearly 5,000 records from the National Cancer Database.

“There are multiple studies from primarily adult populations showing females with melanoma have a different presentation and better outcomes than males,” co-first author Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview with this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session. “However, because melanoma is so rare in younger patients, little is known about gender differences in presentation and survival in pediatric and adolescent patients. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies to date in this population, and the first to explore gender differences in detail in pediatric and adolescent patients with melanoma.”

Working with co-first author Sabrina Dahak, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, Dr. Thiede and colleagues retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database to identify biopsy-confirmed invasive primary cutaneous melanoma cases diagnosed in patients 0-21 years of age between 2004 and 2018. The search yielded 4,645 cases, and the researchers used American Academy of Pediatrics definitions to categorize the patients by age, from infancy (birth to 2 years), to childhood (3-10 years), early adolescence (11-14 years), middle adolescence (15-17 years), and late adolescence (18-21 years). They used the Kaplan Meier analysis to determine overall survival and multivariate Cox regression to determine independent survival predictors.

Of the 4,645 pediatric melanoma cases, 63.4% were in females and 36.6% were in males, a difference that was significant (P < .001). Dr. Thiede and colleagues also observed a significant relationship between primary site and gender (P < .001). Primary sites included the trunk (34.3% of females vs. 32.9% of males, respectively), head and neck (16.4% vs. 30.9%), upper extremities (19.5% vs. 16%), lower extremities (27.9% vs. 16.5%), and “unspecified” (1.9% vs. 3.7%).

Females had higher rates of superficial spreading melanoma while males were affected by nodular melanoma more often. For example, the median Breslow depth was higher for males (1.05 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 0.50-2.31) than for females (0.80 mm; IQR, 0.40-1.67; P < .001).

Although females accounted for a higher percentage of cases than males overall, from birth to 17 years, a higher percentage of males than females were found to have later stage of melanoma at time of diagnosis: Females were more likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease (67.8%) than were males (53.6%), and males were more likely than were females to be diagnosed with stages II (15.9% vs. 12.3%), III (27.1% vs. 18.3%), and IV disease (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P < .001 for all).

In other findings, the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were higher for females (95.9% and 93.9%, respectively) than for males (92.0% vs. 86.7%, respectively; P < .001). However, by age group, overall survival rates were similar between females and males among infants, children, and those in early adolescence – but not for those in middle adolescence (96.7% vs. 91.9%; P < .001) or late adolescence (95.7% vs. 90.4%; P < .001).

When the researchers adjusted for confounding variables, male gender was independently associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.37; P < .001), but age was not.

“It was particularly surprising to see that even at such a young age, there is a significant difference in overall survival between males and females, where females have better outcomes than males,” Dr. Thiede said. “When examining pediatric and adolescent patients, it is essential to maintain cutaneous melanoma on the differential,” she advised. “It is important for clinicians to perform a thorough exam at annual visits particularly for those at high risk for melanoma to catch this rare but potentially devastating diagnosis.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on one database, “as comparing multiple databases would strengthen the conclusions,” she said. “There was some missing data present in our dataset, and a large percentage of the histologic subtypes were unspecified, both of which are common issues with cancer registries. An additional limitation is related to the low death rates in adolescent and pediatric patients, which may impact the analysis related to survival and independent predictors of survival.”

Asked to comment on the study results, Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said that the finding that males were more likely to present with stage II or higher disease compared with females “could be related to their finding that females had more superficial spreading melanomas, whereas males had more nodular melanoma.” Those differences “could influence how providers evaluate melanocytic lesions in children,” she added.

Dr. Coughlin, who directs the pediatric dermatology fellowship at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said it was “interesting” that the authors found no association between older age and an increased risk of death. “It would be helpful to have more data about melanoma subtype, including information about Spitz or Spitzoid melanomas,” she said. “Also, knowing the distribution of melanoma across the age categories could provide more insight into their data.”

Ms. Dahak received an award from the National Cancer Institute to fund travel for presentation of this study at the SPD meeting. No other financial conflicts were reported by the researchers. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Among children and adolescents diagnosed with melanoma, females had higher rates of superficial spreading disease, while males were more frequently affected by nodular melanoma.

In addition, male gender was independently associated with increased mortality, but age was not.

Those are key findings from a retrospective cohort analysis of nearly 5,000 records from the National Cancer Database.

“There are multiple studies from primarily adult populations showing females with melanoma have a different presentation and better outcomes than males,” co-first author Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview with this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session. “However, because melanoma is so rare in younger patients, little is known about gender differences in presentation and survival in pediatric and adolescent patients. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies to date in this population, and the first to explore gender differences in detail in pediatric and adolescent patients with melanoma.”

Working with co-first author Sabrina Dahak, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, Dr. Thiede and colleagues retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database to identify biopsy-confirmed invasive primary cutaneous melanoma cases diagnosed in patients 0-21 years of age between 2004 and 2018. The search yielded 4,645 cases, and the researchers used American Academy of Pediatrics definitions to categorize the patients by age, from infancy (birth to 2 years), to childhood (3-10 years), early adolescence (11-14 years), middle adolescence (15-17 years), and late adolescence (18-21 years). They used the Kaplan Meier analysis to determine overall survival and multivariate Cox regression to determine independent survival predictors.

Of the 4,645 pediatric melanoma cases, 63.4% were in females and 36.6% were in males, a difference that was significant (P < .001). Dr. Thiede and colleagues also observed a significant relationship between primary site and gender (P < .001). Primary sites included the trunk (34.3% of females vs. 32.9% of males, respectively), head and neck (16.4% vs. 30.9%), upper extremities (19.5% vs. 16%), lower extremities (27.9% vs. 16.5%), and “unspecified” (1.9% vs. 3.7%).

Females had higher rates of superficial spreading melanoma while males were affected by nodular melanoma more often. For example, the median Breslow depth was higher for males (1.05 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 0.50-2.31) than for females (0.80 mm; IQR, 0.40-1.67; P < .001).

Although females accounted for a higher percentage of cases than males overall, from birth to 17 years, a higher percentage of males than females were found to have later stage of melanoma at time of diagnosis: Females were more likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease (67.8%) than were males (53.6%), and males were more likely than were females to be diagnosed with stages II (15.9% vs. 12.3%), III (27.1% vs. 18.3%), and IV disease (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P < .001 for all).

In other findings, the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were higher for females (95.9% and 93.9%, respectively) than for males (92.0% vs. 86.7%, respectively; P < .001). However, by age group, overall survival rates were similar between females and males among infants, children, and those in early adolescence – but not for those in middle adolescence (96.7% vs. 91.9%; P < .001) or late adolescence (95.7% vs. 90.4%; P < .001).

When the researchers adjusted for confounding variables, male gender was independently associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.37; P < .001), but age was not.

“It was particularly surprising to see that even at such a young age, there is a significant difference in overall survival between males and females, where females have better outcomes than males,” Dr. Thiede said. “When examining pediatric and adolescent patients, it is essential to maintain cutaneous melanoma on the differential,” she advised. “It is important for clinicians to perform a thorough exam at annual visits particularly for those at high risk for melanoma to catch this rare but potentially devastating diagnosis.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on one database, “as comparing multiple databases would strengthen the conclusions,” she said. “There was some missing data present in our dataset, and a large percentage of the histologic subtypes were unspecified, both of which are common issues with cancer registries. An additional limitation is related to the low death rates in adolescent and pediatric patients, which may impact the analysis related to survival and independent predictors of survival.”

Asked to comment on the study results, Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said that the finding that males were more likely to present with stage II or higher disease compared with females “could be related to their finding that females had more superficial spreading melanomas, whereas males had more nodular melanoma.” Those differences “could influence how providers evaluate melanocytic lesions in children,” she added.

Dr. Coughlin, who directs the pediatric dermatology fellowship at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said it was “interesting” that the authors found no association between older age and an increased risk of death. “It would be helpful to have more data about melanoma subtype, including information about Spitz or Spitzoid melanomas,” she said. “Also, knowing the distribution of melanoma across the age categories could provide more insight into their data.”

Ms. Dahak received an award from the National Cancer Institute to fund travel for presentation of this study at the SPD meeting. No other financial conflicts were reported by the researchers. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Adolescents with nonsegmental vitiligo achieved substantial repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream, compared with those in a vehicle group at week 24, and a higher proportion responded at week 52, results from a pooled analysis of phase 3 data showed.

Currently, there is no treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration to repigment patients with vitiligo, but the cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was shown to be effective and have a favorable safety profile in patients aged 12 years and up in the phase 3 clinical trials, TRuE-V1 and TruE-V2. “We know that about half of patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20, so there is a significant need to have treatments available for the pediatric population,” lead study author David Rosmarin, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In September 2021, topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) was approved by the FDA for treating atopic dermatitis in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older. The manufacturer, Incyte, has submitted an application for approval to the agency for treating vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older based on 24-week results; the FDA is expected to make a decision by July 18.

For the current study, presented during a poster session at the meeting, Dr. Rosmarin, of the department of dermatology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues pooled efficacy and safety data for adolescent patients aged 12-17 years from the TRuE-V studies, which enrolled patients 12 years of age and older diagnosed with nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering up to 10% of total body surface area (BSA), including facial and total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI/T-VASI) scores of ≥ 0.5/≥ 3. Investigators randomized patients 2:1 to twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle for 24 weeks, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. Efficacy endpoints included the proportions of patients who achieved at least 75%, 50%, and 90% improvement from baseline in F-VASI scores (F-VASI75, F-VASI50, F-VASI90); the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in T-VASI (T-VASI50); the proportion of patients who achieved a Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) rating of 4 or 5; and percentage change from baseline in facial BSA (F-BSA). Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

For the pooled analysis, Dr. Rosmarin and colleagues reported results on 72 adolescents: 55 who received ruxolitinib cream and 17 who received vehicle. At week 24, 32.1% of adolescents treated with ruxolitinib cream achieved F-VASI75, compared with none of those in the vehicle group. Further, response rates at week 52 for patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1 were as follows: F-VASI75, 48.0%; F-VASI50, 70.0%; F-VASI90, 24.0%; T-VASI50, 60.0%; VNS score of 4/5, 56.0%; and F-BSA mean percentage change from baseline, –41.9%.

Efficacy at week 52 among crossover patients (after 28 weeks of ruxolitinib cream) was consistent with week 24 data in patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1.

“As we know that repigmentation takes time, about half of the patients achieved the F-VASI75 at the 52-week endpoint,” said Dr. Rosmarin, who is also vice-chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston. “Particularly remarkable is that 60% of adolescents achieved a T-VASI50 [50% or more repigmentation of the whole body at the year mark] and over half the patients described their vitiligo as a lot less noticeable or no longer noticeable at the year mark.”

In terms of safety, treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% of patients treated with ruxolitinib (no information was available on the specific events). Serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of patients; none were considered related to treatment.

“Overall, these results are quite impressive,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “While it can be very challenging to repigment patients with vitiligo, ruxolitinib cream provides an effective option which can help many of my patients.” He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that the TRuE-V studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “which may have contributed to patients being lost to follow-up. Also, the majority of the patients had skin phototypes 1-3.”

Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients with vitiligo need treatment options that are well-studied and covered by insurance. “This study is a great step forward in developing medications for this underserved patient population,” said Dr. Coughlin, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

However, she continued, “the authors mention approximately 13% of patients had a treatment-related adverse reaction, but the abstract does not delineate these reactions.” In addition, the study was limited to children who had less than or equal to 10% body surface area involvement of vitiligo, she noted, adding that “more work is needed to learn about safety of application to larger surface areas.”

Going forward, “it will be important to learn the durability of response,” said Dr. Coughlin, who is also assistant professor of dermatology at Washington University in St. Louis. “Does the vitiligo return if patients stop applying the ruxolitinib cream?”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he has received honoraria as a consultant for Incyte, AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and VielaBio. He has also received research support from Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Adolescents with nonsegmental vitiligo achieved substantial repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream, compared with those in a vehicle group at week 24, and a higher proportion responded at week 52, results from a pooled analysis of phase 3 data showed.

Currently, there is no treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration to repigment patients with vitiligo, but the cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was shown to be effective and have a favorable safety profile in patients aged 12 years and up in the phase 3 clinical trials, TRuE-V1 and TruE-V2. “We know that about half of patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20, so there is a significant need to have treatments available for the pediatric population,” lead study author David Rosmarin, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In September 2021, topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) was approved by the FDA for treating atopic dermatitis in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older. The manufacturer, Incyte, has submitted an application for approval to the agency for treating vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older based on 24-week results; the FDA is expected to make a decision by July 18.

For the current study, presented during a poster session at the meeting, Dr. Rosmarin, of the department of dermatology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues pooled efficacy and safety data for adolescent patients aged 12-17 years from the TRuE-V studies, which enrolled patients 12 years of age and older diagnosed with nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering up to 10% of total body surface area (BSA), including facial and total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI/T-VASI) scores of ≥ 0.5/≥ 3. Investigators randomized patients 2:1 to twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle for 24 weeks, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. Efficacy endpoints included the proportions of patients who achieved at least 75%, 50%, and 90% improvement from baseline in F-VASI scores (F-VASI75, F-VASI50, F-VASI90); the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in T-VASI (T-VASI50); the proportion of patients who achieved a Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) rating of 4 or 5; and percentage change from baseline in facial BSA (F-BSA). Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

For the pooled analysis, Dr. Rosmarin and colleagues reported results on 72 adolescents: 55 who received ruxolitinib cream and 17 who received vehicle. At week 24, 32.1% of adolescents treated with ruxolitinib cream achieved F-VASI75, compared with none of those in the vehicle group. Further, response rates at week 52 for patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1 were as follows: F-VASI75, 48.0%; F-VASI50, 70.0%; F-VASI90, 24.0%; T-VASI50, 60.0%; VNS score of 4/5, 56.0%; and F-BSA mean percentage change from baseline, –41.9%.

Efficacy at week 52 among crossover patients (after 28 weeks of ruxolitinib cream) was consistent with week 24 data in patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1.

“As we know that repigmentation takes time, about half of the patients achieved the F-VASI75 at the 52-week endpoint,” said Dr. Rosmarin, who is also vice-chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston. “Particularly remarkable is that 60% of adolescents achieved a T-VASI50 [50% or more repigmentation of the whole body at the year mark] and over half the patients described their vitiligo as a lot less noticeable or no longer noticeable at the year mark.”

In terms of safety, treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% of patients treated with ruxolitinib (no information was available on the specific events). Serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of patients; none were considered related to treatment.

“Overall, these results are quite impressive,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “While it can be very challenging to repigment patients with vitiligo, ruxolitinib cream provides an effective option which can help many of my patients.” He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that the TRuE-V studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “which may have contributed to patients being lost to follow-up. Also, the majority of the patients had skin phototypes 1-3.”

Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients with vitiligo need treatment options that are well-studied and covered by insurance. “This study is a great step forward in developing medications for this underserved patient population,” said Dr. Coughlin, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

However, she continued, “the authors mention approximately 13% of patients had a treatment-related adverse reaction, but the abstract does not delineate these reactions.” In addition, the study was limited to children who had less than or equal to 10% body surface area involvement of vitiligo, she noted, adding that “more work is needed to learn about safety of application to larger surface areas.”

Going forward, “it will be important to learn the durability of response,” said Dr. Coughlin, who is also assistant professor of dermatology at Washington University in St. Louis. “Does the vitiligo return if patients stop applying the ruxolitinib cream?”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he has received honoraria as a consultant for Incyte, AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and VielaBio. He has also received research support from Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Adolescents with nonsegmental vitiligo achieved substantial repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream, compared with those in a vehicle group at week 24, and a higher proportion responded at week 52, results from a pooled analysis of phase 3 data showed.

Currently, there is no treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration to repigment patients with vitiligo, but the cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was shown to be effective and have a favorable safety profile in patients aged 12 years and up in the phase 3 clinical trials, TRuE-V1 and TruE-V2. “We know that about half of patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20, so there is a significant need to have treatments available for the pediatric population,” lead study author David Rosmarin, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In September 2021, topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) was approved by the FDA for treating atopic dermatitis in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older. The manufacturer, Incyte, has submitted an application for approval to the agency for treating vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older based on 24-week results; the FDA is expected to make a decision by July 18.

For the current study, presented during a poster session at the meeting, Dr. Rosmarin, of the department of dermatology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues pooled efficacy and safety data for adolescent patients aged 12-17 years from the TRuE-V studies, which enrolled patients 12 years of age and older diagnosed with nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering up to 10% of total body surface area (BSA), including facial and total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI/T-VASI) scores of ≥ 0.5/≥ 3. Investigators randomized patients 2:1 to twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle for 24 weeks, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. Efficacy endpoints included the proportions of patients who achieved at least 75%, 50%, and 90% improvement from baseline in F-VASI scores (F-VASI75, F-VASI50, F-VASI90); the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in T-VASI (T-VASI50); the proportion of patients who achieved a Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) rating of 4 or 5; and percentage change from baseline in facial BSA (F-BSA). Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

For the pooled analysis, Dr. Rosmarin and colleagues reported results on 72 adolescents: 55 who received ruxolitinib cream and 17 who received vehicle. At week 24, 32.1% of adolescents treated with ruxolitinib cream achieved F-VASI75, compared with none of those in the vehicle group. Further, response rates at week 52 for patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1 were as follows: F-VASI75, 48.0%; F-VASI50, 70.0%; F-VASI90, 24.0%; T-VASI50, 60.0%; VNS score of 4/5, 56.0%; and F-BSA mean percentage change from baseline, –41.9%.

Efficacy at week 52 among crossover patients (after 28 weeks of ruxolitinib cream) was consistent with week 24 data in patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1.

“As we know that repigmentation takes time, about half of the patients achieved the F-VASI75 at the 52-week endpoint,” said Dr. Rosmarin, who is also vice-chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston. “Particularly remarkable is that 60% of adolescents achieved a T-VASI50 [50% or more repigmentation of the whole body at the year mark] and over half the patients described their vitiligo as a lot less noticeable or no longer noticeable at the year mark.”

In terms of safety, treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% of patients treated with ruxolitinib (no information was available on the specific events). Serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of patients; none were considered related to treatment.

“Overall, these results are quite impressive,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “While it can be very challenging to repigment patients with vitiligo, ruxolitinib cream provides an effective option which can help many of my patients.” He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that the TRuE-V studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “which may have contributed to patients being lost to follow-up. Also, the majority of the patients had skin phototypes 1-3.”

Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients with vitiligo need treatment options that are well-studied and covered by insurance. “This study is a great step forward in developing medications for this underserved patient population,” said Dr. Coughlin, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

However, she continued, “the authors mention approximately 13% of patients had a treatment-related adverse reaction, but the abstract does not delineate these reactions.” In addition, the study was limited to children who had less than or equal to 10% body surface area involvement of vitiligo, she noted, adding that “more work is needed to learn about safety of application to larger surface areas.”

Going forward, “it will be important to learn the durability of response,” said Dr. Coughlin, who is also assistant professor of dermatology at Washington University in St. Louis. “Does the vitiligo return if patients stop applying the ruxolitinib cream?”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he has received honoraria as a consultant for Incyte, AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and VielaBio. He has also received research support from Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.