User login
Doug Brunk is a San Diego-based award-winning reporter who began covering health care in 1991. Before joining the company, he wrote for the health sciences division of Columbia University and was an associate editor at Contemporary Long Term Care magazine when it won a Jesse H. Neal Award. His work has been syndicated by the Los Angeles Times and he is the author of two books related to the University of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball program. Doug has a master’s degree in magazine journalism from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University. Follow him on Twitter @dougbrunk.
Selective cooling technology being used to remove age spots
, according to Arisa E. Ortiz, MD.
“What’s unique about this device is that I can see results without any downtime,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Most other devices are not like that. It was well tolerated; there was minimal pain. There was no postinflammatory hyperpigmentation; it really is customizable to the patients’ needs.”
First cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 to remove benign lesions of the skin, Glacial Rx received an expanded indication in 2020 to temporarily reduce pain, swelling, and inflammation. The device, which was developed by R2 Technologies, relies on cryomodulation, a concept developed at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, to improve skin appearance and freeze melanin at the source. “Cryomodulation pauses melanin production, but the melanocyte function is preserved, the epidermal barrier is not disrupted, and there is no persistent inflammatory response, which is key, because it decreases the risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, especially in darker skin types,” Dr. Ortiz said.
Here’s how it works: The handpiece of the device is placed on top of the skin and cooling is delivered to targeted solar lentigos and other benign lesions. Ice nucleation takes place within the dendrites. As cell turnover takes place, melanin-free cells migrate upward and appear as new skin. “Clinically, this appears as clearance of the lesion,” Dr. Ortiz said.
She discussed her clinical experience treating 15 patients with a beta version of the device. Since that time, Glacial Rx was redesigned to include a smaller-tipped handpiece, easier and faster prep time, and a proprietary water-based gel to facilitate ice crystal propagation, which is applied to the targeted lesions just prior to treatment.
For the trial at UCSD, the researchers performed 29 treatment sessions on 15 patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV, to gain clinical experience and evaluate the effectiveness of the device. They found that the treatment was well tolerated, with minimal discomfort. The amount of heat extracted ranged from 107 to 166 kJ/cm2. No long-term dyschromia was observed, and some patients had lesion clearance after just one treatment.
“The settings are able to be titrated to where you have zero downtime, but you still get a lightening effect,” Dr. Ortiz said during the meeting, named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “With other devices such as intense pulsed light, if you don’t see darkening than it probably didn’t work. With this device, you can titrate the length of the cooling and the temperature of the cooling.”
Posttreatment side effects commonly observed in the study were mild erythema, swelling, itching, and darkening. “There was minimal erythema in the higher settings, and some reports of itching and transient darkening in some of the higher settings,” she said.
Future indications for Glacial Rx may include psoriasis, acne, and rosacea. “We did try to use this for melasma,” she said. “It was effective, but I wouldn’t say it’s a cure for melasma. Melasma is very stubborn and requires a combination treatment, but it’s something we can use in our armamentarium.”
Dr. Ortiz reported having received consulting fees from R2 Technologies. She has been a paid consultant for and has received equipment from many device companies.
, according to Arisa E. Ortiz, MD.
“What’s unique about this device is that I can see results without any downtime,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Most other devices are not like that. It was well tolerated; there was minimal pain. There was no postinflammatory hyperpigmentation; it really is customizable to the patients’ needs.”
First cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 to remove benign lesions of the skin, Glacial Rx received an expanded indication in 2020 to temporarily reduce pain, swelling, and inflammation. The device, which was developed by R2 Technologies, relies on cryomodulation, a concept developed at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, to improve skin appearance and freeze melanin at the source. “Cryomodulation pauses melanin production, but the melanocyte function is preserved, the epidermal barrier is not disrupted, and there is no persistent inflammatory response, which is key, because it decreases the risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, especially in darker skin types,” Dr. Ortiz said.
Here’s how it works: The handpiece of the device is placed on top of the skin and cooling is delivered to targeted solar lentigos and other benign lesions. Ice nucleation takes place within the dendrites. As cell turnover takes place, melanin-free cells migrate upward and appear as new skin. “Clinically, this appears as clearance of the lesion,” Dr. Ortiz said.
She discussed her clinical experience treating 15 patients with a beta version of the device. Since that time, Glacial Rx was redesigned to include a smaller-tipped handpiece, easier and faster prep time, and a proprietary water-based gel to facilitate ice crystal propagation, which is applied to the targeted lesions just prior to treatment.
For the trial at UCSD, the researchers performed 29 treatment sessions on 15 patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV, to gain clinical experience and evaluate the effectiveness of the device. They found that the treatment was well tolerated, with minimal discomfort. The amount of heat extracted ranged from 107 to 166 kJ/cm2. No long-term dyschromia was observed, and some patients had lesion clearance after just one treatment.
“The settings are able to be titrated to where you have zero downtime, but you still get a lightening effect,” Dr. Ortiz said during the meeting, named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “With other devices such as intense pulsed light, if you don’t see darkening than it probably didn’t work. With this device, you can titrate the length of the cooling and the temperature of the cooling.”
Posttreatment side effects commonly observed in the study were mild erythema, swelling, itching, and darkening. “There was minimal erythema in the higher settings, and some reports of itching and transient darkening in some of the higher settings,” she said.
Future indications for Glacial Rx may include psoriasis, acne, and rosacea. “We did try to use this for melasma,” she said. “It was effective, but I wouldn’t say it’s a cure for melasma. Melasma is very stubborn and requires a combination treatment, but it’s something we can use in our armamentarium.”
Dr. Ortiz reported having received consulting fees from R2 Technologies. She has been a paid consultant for and has received equipment from many device companies.
, according to Arisa E. Ortiz, MD.
“What’s unique about this device is that I can see results without any downtime,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Most other devices are not like that. It was well tolerated; there was minimal pain. There was no postinflammatory hyperpigmentation; it really is customizable to the patients’ needs.”
First cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 to remove benign lesions of the skin, Glacial Rx received an expanded indication in 2020 to temporarily reduce pain, swelling, and inflammation. The device, which was developed by R2 Technologies, relies on cryomodulation, a concept developed at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, to improve skin appearance and freeze melanin at the source. “Cryomodulation pauses melanin production, but the melanocyte function is preserved, the epidermal barrier is not disrupted, and there is no persistent inflammatory response, which is key, because it decreases the risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, especially in darker skin types,” Dr. Ortiz said.
Here’s how it works: The handpiece of the device is placed on top of the skin and cooling is delivered to targeted solar lentigos and other benign lesions. Ice nucleation takes place within the dendrites. As cell turnover takes place, melanin-free cells migrate upward and appear as new skin. “Clinically, this appears as clearance of the lesion,” Dr. Ortiz said.
She discussed her clinical experience treating 15 patients with a beta version of the device. Since that time, Glacial Rx was redesigned to include a smaller-tipped handpiece, easier and faster prep time, and a proprietary water-based gel to facilitate ice crystal propagation, which is applied to the targeted lesions just prior to treatment.
For the trial at UCSD, the researchers performed 29 treatment sessions on 15 patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV, to gain clinical experience and evaluate the effectiveness of the device. They found that the treatment was well tolerated, with minimal discomfort. The amount of heat extracted ranged from 107 to 166 kJ/cm2. No long-term dyschromia was observed, and some patients had lesion clearance after just one treatment.
“The settings are able to be titrated to where you have zero downtime, but you still get a lightening effect,” Dr. Ortiz said during the meeting, named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “With other devices such as intense pulsed light, if you don’t see darkening than it probably didn’t work. With this device, you can titrate the length of the cooling and the temperature of the cooling.”
Posttreatment side effects commonly observed in the study were mild erythema, swelling, itching, and darkening. “There was minimal erythema in the higher settings, and some reports of itching and transient darkening in some of the higher settings,” she said.
Future indications for Glacial Rx may include psoriasis, acne, and rosacea. “We did try to use this for melasma,” she said. “It was effective, but I wouldn’t say it’s a cure for melasma. Melasma is very stubborn and requires a combination treatment, but it’s something we can use in our armamentarium.”
Dr. Ortiz reported having received consulting fees from R2 Technologies. She has been a paid consultant for and has received equipment from many device companies.
FROM A LASER & AESTHETIC SKIN THERAPY COURSE
Disinclined to offer laser hair removal? An expert makes the case to think otherwise
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, hears some dermatology colleagues say they don’t bother to offer laser hair removal in their practices because they figure that the procedure is under the purview of medical spas, but he sees it differently.
“I offer laser hair removal in my practice as a way to protect my patients from being picked off by medical spas,” Dr. Ibrahimi, a dermatologist and medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “These patients are going to want to get laser hair removal. If they’re not going to have the opportunity to get it at your practice, they’re going to seek it elsewhere. When they go elsewhere, they’re going to be picked off for other procedures as well.”
First developed in 1995 by R. Rox Anderson, MD, and colleagues at The Wellman Center for Photomedicine, laser hair removal has become the gold standard for permanent hair destruction, and ranks as the most common energy-based procedure performed in the world, Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Results are very long lasting and durable beyond 2 years after treatment,” he said. “These patients tend to be highly satisfied and have permanence with these treatments.”
Treatment goal, patient selection
While the target chromophore for the procedure is melanin, the goal is to destroy the stem cells located in the hair bulge and the hair bulb. “This is technically called the extended theory of selective photothermolysis, but it’s the same concept except that our target chromophore and our desired target for destruction are slightly spatially separated,” he said.
Proper patient selection is key, so a focused medical history and physical exam are essential prior to the procedure. If unwanted hair is located on the face, jawline, or chest of a female, consider and ask about potential endocrine-related dysfunctions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). “Getting those addressed can often help the hypertrichosis as well,” he said. “Another condition is explosive hypertrichosis where hair growth starts very suddenly. It’s uncommon but it’s something to think about.”
Pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication for laser hair removal, Dr. Ibrahimi continued, but he elects not to perform the procedure on pregnant patients. He also asks patients about any history of photosensitivity, active infection at the intended treatment site, keloids, or hypertrophic scarring. Past methods of hair removal also matter. “What we’re targeting is the pigment in the hair shafts,” he said. “So, if your patient is waxing or plucking or epilating or removing the hair in some manner, they’re actually removing the target chromophore.”
Patients with darker Fitzpatrick skin types can be treated safely but tanned individuals face a risk of complications because of active melanocytes. “As we approach summer in New England, we slow down the amount of hair removal we do because it’s a riskier procedure,” he said. “I recommend that my patients not get any significant amount of sun exposure a month before or after treatment.”
The color and quality of hair also drive treatment success. Black and brown terminal hairs absorb the millisecond laser energy, but white, gray, red, and light blond hairs lack adequate melanin to make them suitable target chromophores.
Excessive and unwanted body hair ranges in severity and can usually be classified as either hypertrichosis or hirsutism.
The desired clinical endpoint is perifollicular edema and erythema. Treatment parameters that can be varied with Food and Drug Administration–cleared devices include wavelength, fluence, pulse duration, spot size, and skin cooling. The most popular devices are the Alexandrite 755 nm laser; the diode 800 nm laser; and the 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser, which is safe for all skin types. “Often you have to use higher relative fluences to treat patients with the 1064 nm Nd:YAG because on the absorption spectrum, the 1064-nm wavelength has a relatively lower absorption for melanin compared to the alexandrite. However, you can still get effective, long-term hair reduction with the Nd:YAG laser,” he said (Arch Dermatol. 2008 Oct;144[10]:1323-7).
More recently, Dr. Ibrahimi and colleagues found that a 1060-nm diode laser system with multiple handpieces for permanent hair reduction was safe for all skin types, in an open label prospective study.
Higher fluences have been correlated with greater rates of permanent hair removal, but they also are more likely to cause undesired side effects. Dr. Ibrahimi advises clinicians new to laser hair removal to conduct a few different test spots and look for the desired clinical endpoint of perifollicular erythema and edema. “The highest fluence that gives you that endpoint without any adverse reactions is going to the best fluence for treatment,” he said at the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “Do a few test spots, bring them back a week later and see which ones were tolerated well without any side effects and which weren’t. That gives you a good starting point for your treatment.”
Cooling down the epidermal melanin not only keeps the procedure safe, it’s a salve for pain. “There are a variety of methods of passive and active cooling,” said Dr. Ibrahimi, a member of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery board of directors. “You can use something as simple as cold gel, but the active methods are better because once the method of passive application of cold gel warms up, you lose that cooling effect. You can use forced chilled air. Many commercial devices come with a cold tip which cools down the epidermal melanin. Others use dynamic cooling, which emit cryogen spray from a separate part of the handpiece. It hits right where the laser pulse is going to go, is absorbed by the skin, and it cools down the epidermal melanin.”
Treatment complications
Complications that can occur from treatment include pigmentary changes such as hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation. “In lighter skinned individuals, sometimes excess fluence can lead to an erythematous appearance,” he said. “In darker-skinned individuals, this often manifests as hyperpigmentation and can be very long-lasting.” Dr. Ibrahimi ranks improper technique as a complication, “because ideally you want to lay your pulses down with 10%-15% overlap during treatment,” he explained. “If you don’t overlap, you’re going to have zones that don’t get any of the laser photons. If you do, then your patient is not going to be happy with you.”
Paradoxical hypertrichosis occurs in 1%-5% of patients, typically in women from Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, or South Asian ethnic backgrounds. This tends to develop on the lateral or jawline part of the face. “Often it occurs in the setting where they come in and want these vellus hairs treated,” he said. “Somehow the laser, instead of destroying the hair shaft, triggers it and stimulates it and can’t differentiate a vellus hair from a terminal hair. This is important to discuss during your informed consent, especially when you’re treating on the lateral jawline or the sideburn area. If this happens, you can treat through it.”
Transgender patients and future directions
Dr. Ibrahimi pointed out that increasing numbers of transgender patients are visiting dermatologists seeking laser hair removal. About 16 million Americans are estimated to have a gender identity that differs from the one assigned to them at birth, yet they face several barriers to care, “ranging from ignorance on our end to maybe our own biases being transposed onto these patients,” he said. “We really need to do a better job for them. We really have an obligation to provide good care for all of our patients.”
Transgender women typically seek hair removal on the face and neck as well as in the genital area to remove hairs in preparation for vaginoplasty. Transgender men typically seek hair reduction on the forearm or on the thigh, because those are graft sites in preparation for phalloplasty. As a resource for transgender care, he recommends the UCSF Transgender Care website.
As for future directions in the field, Dr. Ibrahimi predicted that hair removal devices for home use will continue to improve and become more widespread. “This raises a host of considerations, from the risk of eye damage to the risk for paradoxical hypertrichosis, and what happens when pigmented lesions get treated with these low-powered machines compared to the ones we have in our office,” he said. “I also think we’re going to see office-based devices with larger spot sizes, smarter devices that are capable of taking over more of the functions we do. I’m most excited about the potential for treating nonpigmented white hair or poorly pigmented blond or reddish hair in the future.”
Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he has received research funding and speaker honoraria from Lutronic, Lumenis, Cutera, and Syneron-Candela. He also holds stock in AVAVA Inc.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, hears some dermatology colleagues say they don’t bother to offer laser hair removal in their practices because they figure that the procedure is under the purview of medical spas, but he sees it differently.
“I offer laser hair removal in my practice as a way to protect my patients from being picked off by medical spas,” Dr. Ibrahimi, a dermatologist and medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “These patients are going to want to get laser hair removal. If they’re not going to have the opportunity to get it at your practice, they’re going to seek it elsewhere. When they go elsewhere, they’re going to be picked off for other procedures as well.”
First developed in 1995 by R. Rox Anderson, MD, and colleagues at The Wellman Center for Photomedicine, laser hair removal has become the gold standard for permanent hair destruction, and ranks as the most common energy-based procedure performed in the world, Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Results are very long lasting and durable beyond 2 years after treatment,” he said. “These patients tend to be highly satisfied and have permanence with these treatments.”
Treatment goal, patient selection
While the target chromophore for the procedure is melanin, the goal is to destroy the stem cells located in the hair bulge and the hair bulb. “This is technically called the extended theory of selective photothermolysis, but it’s the same concept except that our target chromophore and our desired target for destruction are slightly spatially separated,” he said.
Proper patient selection is key, so a focused medical history and physical exam are essential prior to the procedure. If unwanted hair is located on the face, jawline, or chest of a female, consider and ask about potential endocrine-related dysfunctions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). “Getting those addressed can often help the hypertrichosis as well,” he said. “Another condition is explosive hypertrichosis where hair growth starts very suddenly. It’s uncommon but it’s something to think about.”
Pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication for laser hair removal, Dr. Ibrahimi continued, but he elects not to perform the procedure on pregnant patients. He also asks patients about any history of photosensitivity, active infection at the intended treatment site, keloids, or hypertrophic scarring. Past methods of hair removal also matter. “What we’re targeting is the pigment in the hair shafts,” he said. “So, if your patient is waxing or plucking or epilating or removing the hair in some manner, they’re actually removing the target chromophore.”
Patients with darker Fitzpatrick skin types can be treated safely but tanned individuals face a risk of complications because of active melanocytes. “As we approach summer in New England, we slow down the amount of hair removal we do because it’s a riskier procedure,” he said. “I recommend that my patients not get any significant amount of sun exposure a month before or after treatment.”
The color and quality of hair also drive treatment success. Black and brown terminal hairs absorb the millisecond laser energy, but white, gray, red, and light blond hairs lack adequate melanin to make them suitable target chromophores.
Excessive and unwanted body hair ranges in severity and can usually be classified as either hypertrichosis or hirsutism.
The desired clinical endpoint is perifollicular edema and erythema. Treatment parameters that can be varied with Food and Drug Administration–cleared devices include wavelength, fluence, pulse duration, spot size, and skin cooling. The most popular devices are the Alexandrite 755 nm laser; the diode 800 nm laser; and the 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser, which is safe for all skin types. “Often you have to use higher relative fluences to treat patients with the 1064 nm Nd:YAG because on the absorption spectrum, the 1064-nm wavelength has a relatively lower absorption for melanin compared to the alexandrite. However, you can still get effective, long-term hair reduction with the Nd:YAG laser,” he said (Arch Dermatol. 2008 Oct;144[10]:1323-7).
More recently, Dr. Ibrahimi and colleagues found that a 1060-nm diode laser system with multiple handpieces for permanent hair reduction was safe for all skin types, in an open label prospective study.
Higher fluences have been correlated with greater rates of permanent hair removal, but they also are more likely to cause undesired side effects. Dr. Ibrahimi advises clinicians new to laser hair removal to conduct a few different test spots and look for the desired clinical endpoint of perifollicular erythema and edema. “The highest fluence that gives you that endpoint without any adverse reactions is going to the best fluence for treatment,” he said at the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “Do a few test spots, bring them back a week later and see which ones were tolerated well without any side effects and which weren’t. That gives you a good starting point for your treatment.”
Cooling down the epidermal melanin not only keeps the procedure safe, it’s a salve for pain. “There are a variety of methods of passive and active cooling,” said Dr. Ibrahimi, a member of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery board of directors. “You can use something as simple as cold gel, but the active methods are better because once the method of passive application of cold gel warms up, you lose that cooling effect. You can use forced chilled air. Many commercial devices come with a cold tip which cools down the epidermal melanin. Others use dynamic cooling, which emit cryogen spray from a separate part of the handpiece. It hits right where the laser pulse is going to go, is absorbed by the skin, and it cools down the epidermal melanin.”
Treatment complications
Complications that can occur from treatment include pigmentary changes such as hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation. “In lighter skinned individuals, sometimes excess fluence can lead to an erythematous appearance,” he said. “In darker-skinned individuals, this often manifests as hyperpigmentation and can be very long-lasting.” Dr. Ibrahimi ranks improper technique as a complication, “because ideally you want to lay your pulses down with 10%-15% overlap during treatment,” he explained. “If you don’t overlap, you’re going to have zones that don’t get any of the laser photons. If you do, then your patient is not going to be happy with you.”
Paradoxical hypertrichosis occurs in 1%-5% of patients, typically in women from Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, or South Asian ethnic backgrounds. This tends to develop on the lateral or jawline part of the face. “Often it occurs in the setting where they come in and want these vellus hairs treated,” he said. “Somehow the laser, instead of destroying the hair shaft, triggers it and stimulates it and can’t differentiate a vellus hair from a terminal hair. This is important to discuss during your informed consent, especially when you’re treating on the lateral jawline or the sideburn area. If this happens, you can treat through it.”
Transgender patients and future directions
Dr. Ibrahimi pointed out that increasing numbers of transgender patients are visiting dermatologists seeking laser hair removal. About 16 million Americans are estimated to have a gender identity that differs from the one assigned to them at birth, yet they face several barriers to care, “ranging from ignorance on our end to maybe our own biases being transposed onto these patients,” he said. “We really need to do a better job for them. We really have an obligation to provide good care for all of our patients.”
Transgender women typically seek hair removal on the face and neck as well as in the genital area to remove hairs in preparation for vaginoplasty. Transgender men typically seek hair reduction on the forearm or on the thigh, because those are graft sites in preparation for phalloplasty. As a resource for transgender care, he recommends the UCSF Transgender Care website.
As for future directions in the field, Dr. Ibrahimi predicted that hair removal devices for home use will continue to improve and become more widespread. “This raises a host of considerations, from the risk of eye damage to the risk for paradoxical hypertrichosis, and what happens when pigmented lesions get treated with these low-powered machines compared to the ones we have in our office,” he said. “I also think we’re going to see office-based devices with larger spot sizes, smarter devices that are capable of taking over more of the functions we do. I’m most excited about the potential for treating nonpigmented white hair or poorly pigmented blond or reddish hair in the future.”
Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he has received research funding and speaker honoraria from Lutronic, Lumenis, Cutera, and Syneron-Candela. He also holds stock in AVAVA Inc.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, hears some dermatology colleagues say they don’t bother to offer laser hair removal in their practices because they figure that the procedure is under the purview of medical spas, but he sees it differently.
“I offer laser hair removal in my practice as a way to protect my patients from being picked off by medical spas,” Dr. Ibrahimi, a dermatologist and medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “These patients are going to want to get laser hair removal. If they’re not going to have the opportunity to get it at your practice, they’re going to seek it elsewhere. When they go elsewhere, they’re going to be picked off for other procedures as well.”
First developed in 1995 by R. Rox Anderson, MD, and colleagues at The Wellman Center for Photomedicine, laser hair removal has become the gold standard for permanent hair destruction, and ranks as the most common energy-based procedure performed in the world, Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Results are very long lasting and durable beyond 2 years after treatment,” he said. “These patients tend to be highly satisfied and have permanence with these treatments.”
Treatment goal, patient selection
While the target chromophore for the procedure is melanin, the goal is to destroy the stem cells located in the hair bulge and the hair bulb. “This is technically called the extended theory of selective photothermolysis, but it’s the same concept except that our target chromophore and our desired target for destruction are slightly spatially separated,” he said.
Proper patient selection is key, so a focused medical history and physical exam are essential prior to the procedure. If unwanted hair is located on the face, jawline, or chest of a female, consider and ask about potential endocrine-related dysfunctions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). “Getting those addressed can often help the hypertrichosis as well,” he said. “Another condition is explosive hypertrichosis where hair growth starts very suddenly. It’s uncommon but it’s something to think about.”
Pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication for laser hair removal, Dr. Ibrahimi continued, but he elects not to perform the procedure on pregnant patients. He also asks patients about any history of photosensitivity, active infection at the intended treatment site, keloids, or hypertrophic scarring. Past methods of hair removal also matter. “What we’re targeting is the pigment in the hair shafts,” he said. “So, if your patient is waxing or plucking or epilating or removing the hair in some manner, they’re actually removing the target chromophore.”
Patients with darker Fitzpatrick skin types can be treated safely but tanned individuals face a risk of complications because of active melanocytes. “As we approach summer in New England, we slow down the amount of hair removal we do because it’s a riskier procedure,” he said. “I recommend that my patients not get any significant amount of sun exposure a month before or after treatment.”
The color and quality of hair also drive treatment success. Black and brown terminal hairs absorb the millisecond laser energy, but white, gray, red, and light blond hairs lack adequate melanin to make them suitable target chromophores.
Excessive and unwanted body hair ranges in severity and can usually be classified as either hypertrichosis or hirsutism.
The desired clinical endpoint is perifollicular edema and erythema. Treatment parameters that can be varied with Food and Drug Administration–cleared devices include wavelength, fluence, pulse duration, spot size, and skin cooling. The most popular devices are the Alexandrite 755 nm laser; the diode 800 nm laser; and the 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser, which is safe for all skin types. “Often you have to use higher relative fluences to treat patients with the 1064 nm Nd:YAG because on the absorption spectrum, the 1064-nm wavelength has a relatively lower absorption for melanin compared to the alexandrite. However, you can still get effective, long-term hair reduction with the Nd:YAG laser,” he said (Arch Dermatol. 2008 Oct;144[10]:1323-7).
More recently, Dr. Ibrahimi and colleagues found that a 1060-nm diode laser system with multiple handpieces for permanent hair reduction was safe for all skin types, in an open label prospective study.
Higher fluences have been correlated with greater rates of permanent hair removal, but they also are more likely to cause undesired side effects. Dr. Ibrahimi advises clinicians new to laser hair removal to conduct a few different test spots and look for the desired clinical endpoint of perifollicular erythema and edema. “The highest fluence that gives you that endpoint without any adverse reactions is going to the best fluence for treatment,” he said at the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “Do a few test spots, bring them back a week later and see which ones were tolerated well without any side effects and which weren’t. That gives you a good starting point for your treatment.”
Cooling down the epidermal melanin not only keeps the procedure safe, it’s a salve for pain. “There are a variety of methods of passive and active cooling,” said Dr. Ibrahimi, a member of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery board of directors. “You can use something as simple as cold gel, but the active methods are better because once the method of passive application of cold gel warms up, you lose that cooling effect. You can use forced chilled air. Many commercial devices come with a cold tip which cools down the epidermal melanin. Others use dynamic cooling, which emit cryogen spray from a separate part of the handpiece. It hits right where the laser pulse is going to go, is absorbed by the skin, and it cools down the epidermal melanin.”
Treatment complications
Complications that can occur from treatment include pigmentary changes such as hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation. “In lighter skinned individuals, sometimes excess fluence can lead to an erythematous appearance,” he said. “In darker-skinned individuals, this often manifests as hyperpigmentation and can be very long-lasting.” Dr. Ibrahimi ranks improper technique as a complication, “because ideally you want to lay your pulses down with 10%-15% overlap during treatment,” he explained. “If you don’t overlap, you’re going to have zones that don’t get any of the laser photons. If you do, then your patient is not going to be happy with you.”
Paradoxical hypertrichosis occurs in 1%-5% of patients, typically in women from Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, or South Asian ethnic backgrounds. This tends to develop on the lateral or jawline part of the face. “Often it occurs in the setting where they come in and want these vellus hairs treated,” he said. “Somehow the laser, instead of destroying the hair shaft, triggers it and stimulates it and can’t differentiate a vellus hair from a terminal hair. This is important to discuss during your informed consent, especially when you’re treating on the lateral jawline or the sideburn area. If this happens, you can treat through it.”
Transgender patients and future directions
Dr. Ibrahimi pointed out that increasing numbers of transgender patients are visiting dermatologists seeking laser hair removal. About 16 million Americans are estimated to have a gender identity that differs from the one assigned to them at birth, yet they face several barriers to care, “ranging from ignorance on our end to maybe our own biases being transposed onto these patients,” he said. “We really need to do a better job for them. We really have an obligation to provide good care for all of our patients.”
Transgender women typically seek hair removal on the face and neck as well as in the genital area to remove hairs in preparation for vaginoplasty. Transgender men typically seek hair reduction on the forearm or on the thigh, because those are graft sites in preparation for phalloplasty. As a resource for transgender care, he recommends the UCSF Transgender Care website.
As for future directions in the field, Dr. Ibrahimi predicted that hair removal devices for home use will continue to improve and become more widespread. “This raises a host of considerations, from the risk of eye damage to the risk for paradoxical hypertrichosis, and what happens when pigmented lesions get treated with these low-powered machines compared to the ones we have in our office,” he said. “I also think we’re going to see office-based devices with larger spot sizes, smarter devices that are capable of taking over more of the functions we do. I’m most excited about the potential for treating nonpigmented white hair or poorly pigmented blond or reddish hair in the future.”
Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he has received research funding and speaker honoraria from Lutronic, Lumenis, Cutera, and Syneron-Candela. He also holds stock in AVAVA Inc.
FROM A LASER & AESTHETIC SKIN THERAPY COURSE
How the pandemic prompted one clinic to embrace digital innovation
When the .
“Before COVID, we had zero use of teledermatology,” Dr. Afanasiev, a dermatologist at the practice, said during the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “We didn’t do photography other than the required pre-biopsy photographs, and minimal evaluation of home photos, in response to the patients who say, ‘Wait, doc. Let me pull out my phone and show my photographs.”
During the very first days of the pandemic, in order to accommodate urgent patient requests, she and her colleagues used cloud services for patients to submit photos for concerning skin conditions or lesions, which were then discussed over commonly available video platforms. But they quickly realized that this would not work long-term so within two months, they created an electronic health record–integrated workflow that they are still using, she said.
Here’s how it works. If the patient request is deemed nonacute or does not require a full-body skin exam, the scheduling team offers that patient a store-and-video evaluation (SAVe) or an in-person visit. If a SAVe visit is requested, the patient is required to submit a photograph of his or her condition, then a medical assistant checks for the presence and quality of up to nine patient-submitted photos and contacts the patient if additional photos are required.
Immediately before the encounter, a medical assistant calls the patient to ensure video connectivity and performs a brief intake history. The patient and physician then connect via a video-capable platform – most commonly Vidyo, which is integrated with EPIC. After the visit, the provider notifies the scheduling team if any additional in-person or virtual follow up is required.
In a half day of practice, Dr. Afanasiev sees about 20 patients via video visits scheduled every 15 minutes. On a recent day, 55% of visits were related to acne and 10% were related to a mole check, which usually resulted in recommendation for biopsy. Most (70%) were existing patients, while 30% were new.
“There is no store-and-forward option at this time, meaning that patients can’t just submit a photo without a visit,” she said. “In addition, part of our consent is, if you don’t show up to your scheduled video visit, your photos will not be reviewed. The photos are linked to the video visit and uploaded to the patient’s chart. The rooming workflow is very similar to in clinic, except you’re at home and the medical assistant is remote.”
In an article recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Afanasiev and her colleagues described their experience with this photo plus video teledermatology – SAVe – workflow between March 16, 2020, and Aug. 31, 2020. The researchers analyzed 74,411 dermatology cases encountered by 89 providers who cared for 46,024 patients during that time frame. Most of the encounters (79%) were in-person, while the remaining 21% were digital in nature – SAVe in 89% of cases, followed by telephone/message encounters.
At the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020, SAVe encounters increased to 72% of all encounters from 0% prior to March 16, 2020, and were sustained at 12% when the clinic reopened in the summer of 2020. Over the study period, the clinic’s incorporation of SAVe increased care access to patients located in 731 unique ZIP codes in and near California. “We also have been able to retain many patients within our system,” Dr. Afanasiev said. “We have a large proportion of patients that require 2-3 hours of travel time to get to our clinic, so virtual visits allowed for increased rural access. It also allowed for flexibility for patients and providers.”
The new workflow also led to faster access to care. The time from referral to an in-person evaluation fell from an average of 56 days in 2019 to average of 27 days in 2020, while the wait time for a virtual visit was just 14 days in 2020. “We were able to see a diverse number of diagnostic categories with both in-person and virtual care, most commonly rashes, acne, dermal growths, and pigmentary disorders,” she said.
For clinicians interested in incorporating a SAVe-like system into their workflow, Dr. Afanasiev advises them to think seriously about consent. “You want to make sure patients understand what they’re getting themselves into,” she said. “You want to make sure they know that some diagnoses cannot be adequately addressed by teledermatology.” Photo quality is also important, she said. “Video quality is not good enough for most of our diagnoses, so photos are an important part of this evaluation. In this day and age, patients are actually pretty good photographers most of the time.”
She urges practices to carefully think about how they allow patients to submit photos, especially if photographs are not attached to a billable visit.
In her opinion, a good teledermatology platform should have trained support staff with the ability for patients to send photos prior to their visit, and should be safe, secure, and HIPAA compliant. It should also be app and browser compatible and have high resolution and low downtime.
“Into the future, I think it’s important to maintain teledermatology within our clinical practice, especially for remote monitoring of chronic skin diseases,” Dr. Afanasiev said. “Oftentimes we schedule 3- or 6-month follow-ups but often those do not correspond to the patients’ disease flare. They may have had an eczema or psoriatic flare 3 weeks prior, but we see them in clinic with clear skin, which makes it hard to judge how to tailor our treatment. It will also be important for us to understand the safety and security and legal implications of these new practice styles.”
She also referred to technological advances, which she said “will dovetail well with teledermatology, including robust at-home and commercial 3D virtual capture technology, machine learning algorithms for improved photos, and virtual biopsy technology.”
Dr. Afanasiev is a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Teledermatology Task Force. She had no relevant disclosures.
When the .
“Before COVID, we had zero use of teledermatology,” Dr. Afanasiev, a dermatologist at the practice, said during the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “We didn’t do photography other than the required pre-biopsy photographs, and minimal evaluation of home photos, in response to the patients who say, ‘Wait, doc. Let me pull out my phone and show my photographs.”
During the very first days of the pandemic, in order to accommodate urgent patient requests, she and her colleagues used cloud services for patients to submit photos for concerning skin conditions or lesions, which were then discussed over commonly available video platforms. But they quickly realized that this would not work long-term so within two months, they created an electronic health record–integrated workflow that they are still using, she said.
Here’s how it works. If the patient request is deemed nonacute or does not require a full-body skin exam, the scheduling team offers that patient a store-and-video evaluation (SAVe) or an in-person visit. If a SAVe visit is requested, the patient is required to submit a photograph of his or her condition, then a medical assistant checks for the presence and quality of up to nine patient-submitted photos and contacts the patient if additional photos are required.
Immediately before the encounter, a medical assistant calls the patient to ensure video connectivity and performs a brief intake history. The patient and physician then connect via a video-capable platform – most commonly Vidyo, which is integrated with EPIC. After the visit, the provider notifies the scheduling team if any additional in-person or virtual follow up is required.
In a half day of practice, Dr. Afanasiev sees about 20 patients via video visits scheduled every 15 minutes. On a recent day, 55% of visits were related to acne and 10% were related to a mole check, which usually resulted in recommendation for biopsy. Most (70%) were existing patients, while 30% were new.
“There is no store-and-forward option at this time, meaning that patients can’t just submit a photo without a visit,” she said. “In addition, part of our consent is, if you don’t show up to your scheduled video visit, your photos will not be reviewed. The photos are linked to the video visit and uploaded to the patient’s chart. The rooming workflow is very similar to in clinic, except you’re at home and the medical assistant is remote.”
In an article recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Afanasiev and her colleagues described their experience with this photo plus video teledermatology – SAVe – workflow between March 16, 2020, and Aug. 31, 2020. The researchers analyzed 74,411 dermatology cases encountered by 89 providers who cared for 46,024 patients during that time frame. Most of the encounters (79%) were in-person, while the remaining 21% were digital in nature – SAVe in 89% of cases, followed by telephone/message encounters.
At the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020, SAVe encounters increased to 72% of all encounters from 0% prior to March 16, 2020, and were sustained at 12% when the clinic reopened in the summer of 2020. Over the study period, the clinic’s incorporation of SAVe increased care access to patients located in 731 unique ZIP codes in and near California. “We also have been able to retain many patients within our system,” Dr. Afanasiev said. “We have a large proportion of patients that require 2-3 hours of travel time to get to our clinic, so virtual visits allowed for increased rural access. It also allowed for flexibility for patients and providers.”
The new workflow also led to faster access to care. The time from referral to an in-person evaluation fell from an average of 56 days in 2019 to average of 27 days in 2020, while the wait time for a virtual visit was just 14 days in 2020. “We were able to see a diverse number of diagnostic categories with both in-person and virtual care, most commonly rashes, acne, dermal growths, and pigmentary disorders,” she said.
For clinicians interested in incorporating a SAVe-like system into their workflow, Dr. Afanasiev advises them to think seriously about consent. “You want to make sure patients understand what they’re getting themselves into,” she said. “You want to make sure they know that some diagnoses cannot be adequately addressed by teledermatology.” Photo quality is also important, she said. “Video quality is not good enough for most of our diagnoses, so photos are an important part of this evaluation. In this day and age, patients are actually pretty good photographers most of the time.”
She urges practices to carefully think about how they allow patients to submit photos, especially if photographs are not attached to a billable visit.
In her opinion, a good teledermatology platform should have trained support staff with the ability for patients to send photos prior to their visit, and should be safe, secure, and HIPAA compliant. It should also be app and browser compatible and have high resolution and low downtime.
“Into the future, I think it’s important to maintain teledermatology within our clinical practice, especially for remote monitoring of chronic skin diseases,” Dr. Afanasiev said. “Oftentimes we schedule 3- or 6-month follow-ups but often those do not correspond to the patients’ disease flare. They may have had an eczema or psoriatic flare 3 weeks prior, but we see them in clinic with clear skin, which makes it hard to judge how to tailor our treatment. It will also be important for us to understand the safety and security and legal implications of these new practice styles.”
She also referred to technological advances, which she said “will dovetail well with teledermatology, including robust at-home and commercial 3D virtual capture technology, machine learning algorithms for improved photos, and virtual biopsy technology.”
Dr. Afanasiev is a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Teledermatology Task Force. She had no relevant disclosures.
When the .
“Before COVID, we had zero use of teledermatology,” Dr. Afanasiev, a dermatologist at the practice, said during the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “We didn’t do photography other than the required pre-biopsy photographs, and minimal evaluation of home photos, in response to the patients who say, ‘Wait, doc. Let me pull out my phone and show my photographs.”
During the very first days of the pandemic, in order to accommodate urgent patient requests, she and her colleagues used cloud services for patients to submit photos for concerning skin conditions or lesions, which were then discussed over commonly available video platforms. But they quickly realized that this would not work long-term so within two months, they created an electronic health record–integrated workflow that they are still using, she said.
Here’s how it works. If the patient request is deemed nonacute or does not require a full-body skin exam, the scheduling team offers that patient a store-and-video evaluation (SAVe) or an in-person visit. If a SAVe visit is requested, the patient is required to submit a photograph of his or her condition, then a medical assistant checks for the presence and quality of up to nine patient-submitted photos and contacts the patient if additional photos are required.
Immediately before the encounter, a medical assistant calls the patient to ensure video connectivity and performs a brief intake history. The patient and physician then connect via a video-capable platform – most commonly Vidyo, which is integrated with EPIC. After the visit, the provider notifies the scheduling team if any additional in-person or virtual follow up is required.
In a half day of practice, Dr. Afanasiev sees about 20 patients via video visits scheduled every 15 minutes. On a recent day, 55% of visits were related to acne and 10% were related to a mole check, which usually resulted in recommendation for biopsy. Most (70%) were existing patients, while 30% were new.
“There is no store-and-forward option at this time, meaning that patients can’t just submit a photo without a visit,” she said. “In addition, part of our consent is, if you don’t show up to your scheduled video visit, your photos will not be reviewed. The photos are linked to the video visit and uploaded to the patient’s chart. The rooming workflow is very similar to in clinic, except you’re at home and the medical assistant is remote.”
In an article recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Afanasiev and her colleagues described their experience with this photo plus video teledermatology – SAVe – workflow between March 16, 2020, and Aug. 31, 2020. The researchers analyzed 74,411 dermatology cases encountered by 89 providers who cared for 46,024 patients during that time frame. Most of the encounters (79%) were in-person, while the remaining 21% were digital in nature – SAVe in 89% of cases, followed by telephone/message encounters.
At the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020, SAVe encounters increased to 72% of all encounters from 0% prior to March 16, 2020, and were sustained at 12% when the clinic reopened in the summer of 2020. Over the study period, the clinic’s incorporation of SAVe increased care access to patients located in 731 unique ZIP codes in and near California. “We also have been able to retain many patients within our system,” Dr. Afanasiev said. “We have a large proportion of patients that require 2-3 hours of travel time to get to our clinic, so virtual visits allowed for increased rural access. It also allowed for flexibility for patients and providers.”
The new workflow also led to faster access to care. The time from referral to an in-person evaluation fell from an average of 56 days in 2019 to average of 27 days in 2020, while the wait time for a virtual visit was just 14 days in 2020. “We were able to see a diverse number of diagnostic categories with both in-person and virtual care, most commonly rashes, acne, dermal growths, and pigmentary disorders,” she said.
For clinicians interested in incorporating a SAVe-like system into their workflow, Dr. Afanasiev advises them to think seriously about consent. “You want to make sure patients understand what they’re getting themselves into,” she said. “You want to make sure they know that some diagnoses cannot be adequately addressed by teledermatology.” Photo quality is also important, she said. “Video quality is not good enough for most of our diagnoses, so photos are an important part of this evaluation. In this day and age, patients are actually pretty good photographers most of the time.”
She urges practices to carefully think about how they allow patients to submit photos, especially if photographs are not attached to a billable visit.
In her opinion, a good teledermatology platform should have trained support staff with the ability for patients to send photos prior to their visit, and should be safe, secure, and HIPAA compliant. It should also be app and browser compatible and have high resolution and low downtime.
“Into the future, I think it’s important to maintain teledermatology within our clinical practice, especially for remote monitoring of chronic skin diseases,” Dr. Afanasiev said. “Oftentimes we schedule 3- or 6-month follow-ups but often those do not correspond to the patients’ disease flare. They may have had an eczema or psoriatic flare 3 weeks prior, but we see them in clinic with clear skin, which makes it hard to judge how to tailor our treatment. It will also be important for us to understand the safety and security and legal implications of these new practice styles.”
She also referred to technological advances, which she said “will dovetail well with teledermatology, including robust at-home and commercial 3D virtual capture technology, machine learning algorithms for improved photos, and virtual biopsy technology.”
Dr. Afanasiev is a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Teledermatology Task Force. She had no relevant disclosures.
FROM PDA 2021
Study finds plume generated during laser tattoo removal generally viewed as safe
Results of a new .
While tattoo removal plume has not been previously studied, an analysis from 2016 found that laser hair removal plume contains toxic compounds, including carcinogens and environmental toxins, underscoring the importance of using smoke evacuators, good ventilation, and respiratory protection. “Ultrafine particles can become lodged in human alveoli in the lungs,” the study’s senior author, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “This travels over distances, so it is potentially affecting people in your waiting room and others in areas within the clinic.”
For the study of laser tattoo removal plume, Yakir S. Levin, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH; and coinvestigators from NIOSH, conducted air sampling to determine the gaseous, particulate, and microbiological content of laser tattoo removal plume. They performed the study in ex vivo pig skin and in humans undergoing routine laser tattoo removal, and measured ultrafine particulate concentrations, metals, volatile organic compounds, and airborne bacteria.
For the swine portion of the study, they found that levels of metals including aluminum, copper, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, titanium, and zirconium were all below occupational exposure limits. All organic compounds including acetone and benzene were also below occupational exposure limits. “This is different than what we found in the study of laser plume generated during hair removal,” Dr. Avram said. “In laser hair removal, these were all elevated to a concerning extent.”
For the human part of the study, particle concentrations for ultrafine particulates were higher in the dermatologist’s breathing zone and near the tattoo removal site than in the rest of the treatment room or outside of the room. Concentrations were 30 times lower for human skin than for pig skin. “We’re not sure why, but there were higher levels of ultrafine particulates right around the area we treated,” Dr. Avram said. “Still, they were all below exposure limits that would be concerning in terms of NIOSH. So, although they were elevated, they were still considered safe. That was the case for organic compounds as well.”
He pointed out that the study, which was supported by a grant from the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), did not include an analysis of viral particles generated during later tattoo removal “so there is a question about that,” and it is something worth studying, he said.
Dr. Avram, the current president of ASDS, noted that 17% of the estimated 40 million-plus Americans with tattoos have “tattoo regret,” and many turn to dermatologic surgeons for removal, which requires multiple treatments, and is painful and expensive.
Picosecond lasers
“One thing that’s changed in the past several years is the development of picosecond lasers, which produce extraordinarily high energy for an extraordinarily short period of time,” he said at the meeting, named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. The desired endpoint is dermal whitening with cavitation and rupture. “You don’t want to see splatter with the epidermis flying off,” he said.
Several devices are commercially available with wavelengths of 532, 680, 755, 785, and 1064 nm, and pulse durations ranging from 300 to 750 picoseconds. Nd:Yag lasers target red and black ink, while alexandrite and ruby wavelengths target green and blue ink.
“After the treatment, we use simple Vaseline on top of the tattoo and a nonadherent Telfa dressing with paper tape over it,” Dr. Avram said. For patients with skin of color, he said, “occasionally I will add a steroid. Inflammation and redness can lead to hyperpigmentation. The steroid decreases some of that inflammation and therefore decreases the risk of hyperpigmentation.”
In his clinical experience, picosecond lasers are more effective at tattoo removal than Q-switched nanosecond lasers overall. With a picosecond laser, “you get some nonselective targeting of other pigments such as yellow to improve, even though you really don’t have the correct wavelength. I also think they are more effective for faded tattoos than the Q-switched nanosecond lasers, but they are significantly more expensive, so you need to think about that, and to what extent you are doing tattoo removal. In any event, it’s a multi-treatment process. You do it for multiple weeks between treatments and it takes time and patience. During the consultation, it is crucial to let patients know that.”
In 2012, R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, and colleagues first described the R20 method for tattoo removal, which consists of four consecutive treatment passes with a Q-switched alexandrite laser separated by 20 minutes. “On the first treatment pass, there was an immediate whitening reaction “with little or no whitening on subsequent passes,” said Dr. Avram, who was not involved with the study. “Three months later, treatment with the R20 method was much more effective than conventional single-pass laser treatment. Light microscopy showed greater dispersion of the ink with the R20 method.” A follow-up study conducted at the Wellman Center did not completely support these findings, but a subsequent study led by Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, was more supportive.
This concept has led to new treatment paradigms for tattoo removal, including the Food and Drug Administration–cleared perfluorodecalin patch, a transparent PFD-infused silicone patch that helps reduce scatter and improves efficacy. “It also allows for performing of repeat laser treatments at the same visit without waiting 20 minutes as you would with the R20 method,” Dr. Avram said. In a pilot study, 11 of the 17 patients showed more rapid clearance with the PFD patch than the control side versus one pass without the PFD patch. “It’s important to note that they used only one wavelength, and some of the tattoos weren’t appropriate for that wavelength, so 11 out of 17 is actually better than it might seem,” he said.
Ablative fractional resurfacing can play a role with tattoo removal, but Dr. Avram typically limits this option to recalcitrant tattoos. “Remember: You’re creating a zone of ablation with a cuff of coagulation, so you’re going to remove some of the tattoo just by creating those areas of clearance and vaporization,” he said. “You can do that in combination with the Q-switched or picosecond laser, which has better efficacy. The best way to do this is to start with the pigment laser – the picosecond or nanosecond laser – and then do the ablative fractional resurfacing afterward. You should never use IPL or laser hair removal lasers to remove tattoos, though. I see that occasionally. You’re going to burn your patients.”
Another approach is to use an Nd:Yag picosecond laser followed by microneedling. “What we’re trying to do here is get an egress of the tattoo pigments,” he explained. “We’re trying to mobilize the ink, get it out of the skin, and get it out of the macrophages to get improvement.”
In 2019, Soliton’s Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device was cleared by the FDA for tattoo removal. The device is indicated as an accessory to the 1064-nm Q-switched laser for black ink tattoo removal on the arms, legs, and torso in Fitzpatrick skin type I-III individuals. “It’s an application for 1 minute and that allows for additional laser passes,” Dr. Avram said. “You do the laser treatment, you do the acoustic shock wave device, and you do this as multiple passes. This is getting back to the R20 method, the idea that you are going to treat repeatedly. The rapid acoustic pulses result in dispersion and destruction of dermal vacuoles, which enables multiple laser passes in a single treatment session. If you can see the ink, you can ablate the ink.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, and Galderma. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Allergan and Soliton, is an investigator for Endo, and holds stock options in La Jolla NanoMedical Inc.
Results of a new .
While tattoo removal plume has not been previously studied, an analysis from 2016 found that laser hair removal plume contains toxic compounds, including carcinogens and environmental toxins, underscoring the importance of using smoke evacuators, good ventilation, and respiratory protection. “Ultrafine particles can become lodged in human alveoli in the lungs,” the study’s senior author, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “This travels over distances, so it is potentially affecting people in your waiting room and others in areas within the clinic.”
For the study of laser tattoo removal plume, Yakir S. Levin, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH; and coinvestigators from NIOSH, conducted air sampling to determine the gaseous, particulate, and microbiological content of laser tattoo removal plume. They performed the study in ex vivo pig skin and in humans undergoing routine laser tattoo removal, and measured ultrafine particulate concentrations, metals, volatile organic compounds, and airborne bacteria.
For the swine portion of the study, they found that levels of metals including aluminum, copper, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, titanium, and zirconium were all below occupational exposure limits. All organic compounds including acetone and benzene were also below occupational exposure limits. “This is different than what we found in the study of laser plume generated during hair removal,” Dr. Avram said. “In laser hair removal, these were all elevated to a concerning extent.”
For the human part of the study, particle concentrations for ultrafine particulates were higher in the dermatologist’s breathing zone and near the tattoo removal site than in the rest of the treatment room or outside of the room. Concentrations were 30 times lower for human skin than for pig skin. “We’re not sure why, but there were higher levels of ultrafine particulates right around the area we treated,” Dr. Avram said. “Still, they were all below exposure limits that would be concerning in terms of NIOSH. So, although they were elevated, they were still considered safe. That was the case for organic compounds as well.”
He pointed out that the study, which was supported by a grant from the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), did not include an analysis of viral particles generated during later tattoo removal “so there is a question about that,” and it is something worth studying, he said.
Dr. Avram, the current president of ASDS, noted that 17% of the estimated 40 million-plus Americans with tattoos have “tattoo regret,” and many turn to dermatologic surgeons for removal, which requires multiple treatments, and is painful and expensive.
Picosecond lasers
“One thing that’s changed in the past several years is the development of picosecond lasers, which produce extraordinarily high energy for an extraordinarily short period of time,” he said at the meeting, named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. The desired endpoint is dermal whitening with cavitation and rupture. “You don’t want to see splatter with the epidermis flying off,” he said.
Several devices are commercially available with wavelengths of 532, 680, 755, 785, and 1064 nm, and pulse durations ranging from 300 to 750 picoseconds. Nd:Yag lasers target red and black ink, while alexandrite and ruby wavelengths target green and blue ink.
“After the treatment, we use simple Vaseline on top of the tattoo and a nonadherent Telfa dressing with paper tape over it,” Dr. Avram said. For patients with skin of color, he said, “occasionally I will add a steroid. Inflammation and redness can lead to hyperpigmentation. The steroid decreases some of that inflammation and therefore decreases the risk of hyperpigmentation.”
In his clinical experience, picosecond lasers are more effective at tattoo removal than Q-switched nanosecond lasers overall. With a picosecond laser, “you get some nonselective targeting of other pigments such as yellow to improve, even though you really don’t have the correct wavelength. I also think they are more effective for faded tattoos than the Q-switched nanosecond lasers, but they are significantly more expensive, so you need to think about that, and to what extent you are doing tattoo removal. In any event, it’s a multi-treatment process. You do it for multiple weeks between treatments and it takes time and patience. During the consultation, it is crucial to let patients know that.”
In 2012, R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, and colleagues first described the R20 method for tattoo removal, which consists of four consecutive treatment passes with a Q-switched alexandrite laser separated by 20 minutes. “On the first treatment pass, there was an immediate whitening reaction “with little or no whitening on subsequent passes,” said Dr. Avram, who was not involved with the study. “Three months later, treatment with the R20 method was much more effective than conventional single-pass laser treatment. Light microscopy showed greater dispersion of the ink with the R20 method.” A follow-up study conducted at the Wellman Center did not completely support these findings, but a subsequent study led by Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, was more supportive.
This concept has led to new treatment paradigms for tattoo removal, including the Food and Drug Administration–cleared perfluorodecalin patch, a transparent PFD-infused silicone patch that helps reduce scatter and improves efficacy. “It also allows for performing of repeat laser treatments at the same visit without waiting 20 minutes as you would with the R20 method,” Dr. Avram said. In a pilot study, 11 of the 17 patients showed more rapid clearance with the PFD patch than the control side versus one pass without the PFD patch. “It’s important to note that they used only one wavelength, and some of the tattoos weren’t appropriate for that wavelength, so 11 out of 17 is actually better than it might seem,” he said.
Ablative fractional resurfacing can play a role with tattoo removal, but Dr. Avram typically limits this option to recalcitrant tattoos. “Remember: You’re creating a zone of ablation with a cuff of coagulation, so you’re going to remove some of the tattoo just by creating those areas of clearance and vaporization,” he said. “You can do that in combination with the Q-switched or picosecond laser, which has better efficacy. The best way to do this is to start with the pigment laser – the picosecond or nanosecond laser – and then do the ablative fractional resurfacing afterward. You should never use IPL or laser hair removal lasers to remove tattoos, though. I see that occasionally. You’re going to burn your patients.”
Another approach is to use an Nd:Yag picosecond laser followed by microneedling. “What we’re trying to do here is get an egress of the tattoo pigments,” he explained. “We’re trying to mobilize the ink, get it out of the skin, and get it out of the macrophages to get improvement.”
In 2019, Soliton’s Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device was cleared by the FDA for tattoo removal. The device is indicated as an accessory to the 1064-nm Q-switched laser for black ink tattoo removal on the arms, legs, and torso in Fitzpatrick skin type I-III individuals. “It’s an application for 1 minute and that allows for additional laser passes,” Dr. Avram said. “You do the laser treatment, you do the acoustic shock wave device, and you do this as multiple passes. This is getting back to the R20 method, the idea that you are going to treat repeatedly. The rapid acoustic pulses result in dispersion and destruction of dermal vacuoles, which enables multiple laser passes in a single treatment session. If you can see the ink, you can ablate the ink.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, and Galderma. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Allergan and Soliton, is an investigator for Endo, and holds stock options in La Jolla NanoMedical Inc.
Results of a new .
While tattoo removal plume has not been previously studied, an analysis from 2016 found that laser hair removal plume contains toxic compounds, including carcinogens and environmental toxins, underscoring the importance of using smoke evacuators, good ventilation, and respiratory protection. “Ultrafine particles can become lodged in human alveoli in the lungs,” the study’s senior author, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “This travels over distances, so it is potentially affecting people in your waiting room and others in areas within the clinic.”
For the study of laser tattoo removal plume, Yakir S. Levin, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH; and coinvestigators from NIOSH, conducted air sampling to determine the gaseous, particulate, and microbiological content of laser tattoo removal plume. They performed the study in ex vivo pig skin and in humans undergoing routine laser tattoo removal, and measured ultrafine particulate concentrations, metals, volatile organic compounds, and airborne bacteria.
For the swine portion of the study, they found that levels of metals including aluminum, copper, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, titanium, and zirconium were all below occupational exposure limits. All organic compounds including acetone and benzene were also below occupational exposure limits. “This is different than what we found in the study of laser plume generated during hair removal,” Dr. Avram said. “In laser hair removal, these were all elevated to a concerning extent.”
For the human part of the study, particle concentrations for ultrafine particulates were higher in the dermatologist’s breathing zone and near the tattoo removal site than in the rest of the treatment room or outside of the room. Concentrations were 30 times lower for human skin than for pig skin. “We’re not sure why, but there were higher levels of ultrafine particulates right around the area we treated,” Dr. Avram said. “Still, they were all below exposure limits that would be concerning in terms of NIOSH. So, although they were elevated, they were still considered safe. That was the case for organic compounds as well.”
He pointed out that the study, which was supported by a grant from the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), did not include an analysis of viral particles generated during later tattoo removal “so there is a question about that,” and it is something worth studying, he said.
Dr. Avram, the current president of ASDS, noted that 17% of the estimated 40 million-plus Americans with tattoos have “tattoo regret,” and many turn to dermatologic surgeons for removal, which requires multiple treatments, and is painful and expensive.
Picosecond lasers
“One thing that’s changed in the past several years is the development of picosecond lasers, which produce extraordinarily high energy for an extraordinarily short period of time,” he said at the meeting, named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. The desired endpoint is dermal whitening with cavitation and rupture. “You don’t want to see splatter with the epidermis flying off,” he said.
Several devices are commercially available with wavelengths of 532, 680, 755, 785, and 1064 nm, and pulse durations ranging from 300 to 750 picoseconds. Nd:Yag lasers target red and black ink, while alexandrite and ruby wavelengths target green and blue ink.
“After the treatment, we use simple Vaseline on top of the tattoo and a nonadherent Telfa dressing with paper tape over it,” Dr. Avram said. For patients with skin of color, he said, “occasionally I will add a steroid. Inflammation and redness can lead to hyperpigmentation. The steroid decreases some of that inflammation and therefore decreases the risk of hyperpigmentation.”
In his clinical experience, picosecond lasers are more effective at tattoo removal than Q-switched nanosecond lasers overall. With a picosecond laser, “you get some nonselective targeting of other pigments such as yellow to improve, even though you really don’t have the correct wavelength. I also think they are more effective for faded tattoos than the Q-switched nanosecond lasers, but they are significantly more expensive, so you need to think about that, and to what extent you are doing tattoo removal. In any event, it’s a multi-treatment process. You do it for multiple weeks between treatments and it takes time and patience. During the consultation, it is crucial to let patients know that.”
In 2012, R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, and colleagues first described the R20 method for tattoo removal, which consists of four consecutive treatment passes with a Q-switched alexandrite laser separated by 20 minutes. “On the first treatment pass, there was an immediate whitening reaction “with little or no whitening on subsequent passes,” said Dr. Avram, who was not involved with the study. “Three months later, treatment with the R20 method was much more effective than conventional single-pass laser treatment. Light microscopy showed greater dispersion of the ink with the R20 method.” A follow-up study conducted at the Wellman Center did not completely support these findings, but a subsequent study led by Suzanne L. Kilmer, MD, was more supportive.
This concept has led to new treatment paradigms for tattoo removal, including the Food and Drug Administration–cleared perfluorodecalin patch, a transparent PFD-infused silicone patch that helps reduce scatter and improves efficacy. “It also allows for performing of repeat laser treatments at the same visit without waiting 20 minutes as you would with the R20 method,” Dr. Avram said. In a pilot study, 11 of the 17 patients showed more rapid clearance with the PFD patch than the control side versus one pass without the PFD patch. “It’s important to note that they used only one wavelength, and some of the tattoos weren’t appropriate for that wavelength, so 11 out of 17 is actually better than it might seem,” he said.
Ablative fractional resurfacing can play a role with tattoo removal, but Dr. Avram typically limits this option to recalcitrant tattoos. “Remember: You’re creating a zone of ablation with a cuff of coagulation, so you’re going to remove some of the tattoo just by creating those areas of clearance and vaporization,” he said. “You can do that in combination with the Q-switched or picosecond laser, which has better efficacy. The best way to do this is to start with the pigment laser – the picosecond or nanosecond laser – and then do the ablative fractional resurfacing afterward. You should never use IPL or laser hair removal lasers to remove tattoos, though. I see that occasionally. You’re going to burn your patients.”
Another approach is to use an Nd:Yag picosecond laser followed by microneedling. “What we’re trying to do here is get an egress of the tattoo pigments,” he explained. “We’re trying to mobilize the ink, get it out of the skin, and get it out of the macrophages to get improvement.”
In 2019, Soliton’s Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device was cleared by the FDA for tattoo removal. The device is indicated as an accessory to the 1064-nm Q-switched laser for black ink tattoo removal on the arms, legs, and torso in Fitzpatrick skin type I-III individuals. “It’s an application for 1 minute and that allows for additional laser passes,” Dr. Avram said. “You do the laser treatment, you do the acoustic shock wave device, and you do this as multiple passes. This is getting back to the R20 method, the idea that you are going to treat repeatedly. The rapid acoustic pulses result in dispersion and destruction of dermal vacuoles, which enables multiple laser passes in a single treatment session. If you can see the ink, you can ablate the ink.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, and Galderma. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Allergan and Soliton, is an investigator for Endo, and holds stock options in La Jolla NanoMedical Inc.
FROM A LASER & AESTHETIC SKIN THERAPY COURSE
Fecal microbiota transplants may improve resistance to melanoma immunotherapy
In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their
Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.
For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.
After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.
“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”
Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
Positive results in an Israeli study
Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.
“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”
Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”
As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.
“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”
Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”
Tamia A. Harris-Tryon, MD, PhD, whose lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is studying how diet and the microbiota impact skin immunity, underscored the importance of evaluating the characteristics of the diet of patients as trials of FMT in melanoma patients carry on. “We know that the diet impacts the repertoire of microbes that colonize the gut,” said Dr. Harris-Tryon, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the medical center. “The diet of the recipient likely has an impact” on the success of donor FMT.
She also noted that other skin conditions have been linked to a disrupted gut microbiome, such as psoriasis. “Given the safety of FMT in both of these studies, trials of FMT in psoriasis and other systemic skin conditions should be considered,” she said.
According to Dr. Zarour, mounting data from separate studies show that some gut microbiota play a role in adverse events experienced by melanoma patients on immunotherapy. “That is very important, especially with combination therapy,” he said. “There are also microbes involved in resistance to treatment, so the idea would be to identify these microbes.”
Studies raise more questions
In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”
Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”
The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their
Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.
For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.
After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.
“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”
Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
Positive results in an Israeli study
Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.
“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”
Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”
As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.
“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”
Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”
Tamia A. Harris-Tryon, MD, PhD, whose lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is studying how diet and the microbiota impact skin immunity, underscored the importance of evaluating the characteristics of the diet of patients as trials of FMT in melanoma patients carry on. “We know that the diet impacts the repertoire of microbes that colonize the gut,” said Dr. Harris-Tryon, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the medical center. “The diet of the recipient likely has an impact” on the success of donor FMT.
She also noted that other skin conditions have been linked to a disrupted gut microbiome, such as psoriasis. “Given the safety of FMT in both of these studies, trials of FMT in psoriasis and other systemic skin conditions should be considered,” she said.
According to Dr. Zarour, mounting data from separate studies show that some gut microbiota play a role in adverse events experienced by melanoma patients on immunotherapy. “That is very important, especially with combination therapy,” he said. “There are also microbes involved in resistance to treatment, so the idea would be to identify these microbes.”
Studies raise more questions
In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”
Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”
The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their
Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.
For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.
After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.
“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”
Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
Positive results in an Israeli study
Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.
“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”
Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”
As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.
“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”
Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”
Tamia A. Harris-Tryon, MD, PhD, whose lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is studying how diet and the microbiota impact skin immunity, underscored the importance of evaluating the characteristics of the diet of patients as trials of FMT in melanoma patients carry on. “We know that the diet impacts the repertoire of microbes that colonize the gut,” said Dr. Harris-Tryon, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the medical center. “The diet of the recipient likely has an impact” on the success of donor FMT.
She also noted that other skin conditions have been linked to a disrupted gut microbiome, such as psoriasis. “Given the safety of FMT in both of these studies, trials of FMT in psoriasis and other systemic skin conditions should be considered,” she said.
According to Dr. Zarour, mounting data from separate studies show that some gut microbiota play a role in adverse events experienced by melanoma patients on immunotherapy. “That is very important, especially with combination therapy,” he said. “There are also microbes involved in resistance to treatment, so the idea would be to identify these microbes.”
Studies raise more questions
In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”
Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”
The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
PDT for actinic keratoses continues to be refined
.
“We have conventional PDT, daylight PDT; we can combine with a range of topicals, and we can combine a range of different physical treatment procedures in order to provide better and individualized treatment regimens for our patients,” Merete Haedersdal, MD, PhD, DMSc, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said during a course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.
In Europe, PDT consists of a three-step procedure: curettage of AKs, application of photosensitizer on the skin (typically methyl aminolevulinate, versus aminolevulinic acid, used more often in the United States), and illumination with red light (versus blue light, used more often in the United States), which causes a photochemical reaction.
“It’s a photochemical-reaction concept with which we can achieve up to 90% cure rates of AKs at 3 months,” Dr. Haedersdal said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
PDT is also used in Europe for select patients with Bowen’s disease (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 70% at 2 years); superficial basal cell carcinoma (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 75% at 5 years), and nodular BCC (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 75% at 5 years.
“With conventional PDT, whether it’s blue light, red light, MAL, or ALA, we have beautiful cosmesis, but we also have a challenge, which is pain,” she said. This is behind the motivation to look at other ways to provide PDT.
Daylight PDT, which was pioneered by Dr. Haedersdal’s mentor, Hans Christian Wulf, MD, DMSc, PharmD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, provides 80%-90% clearance of thin AKs, lower clearance of thick AKs – and is a nearly pain-free procedure because of continuous photoactivation of protoporphyrin IX, with a Visual Analog Scale in the range of 1-3. “Globally, thousands of patients have been treated [with daylight PDT], which is backed up in the literature with more than 150 publications,” she said.
According to Dr. Haedersdal, MAL cream with daylight activation for treatment of AK was approved in Colombia and Mexico in 2013; in Australia, Brazil, and Costa Rica in 2014; and in Chile, Europe, and New Zealand in 2015. “I do hope that one day you will have daylight PDT approved in the United States,” she said.
The suggested protocol for daylight PDT starts by applying a sunscreen with an organic filter. After about 15 minutes, the lesion or lesions are prepared, and MAL is applied with no occlusion. Patients should start their exposure to daylight within 30 minutes of application, remaining outdoors for 2 hours of continuous exposure, either at a dedicated space located on the ground of the hospital or clinic or at their home. After 2 hours, patients wipe off the remaining cream and are advised to stay indoors for the rest of the day.
“Ideal candidates are those who have large skin areas that can be easily exposed to sunlight,” such as the scalp and lower legs, said Dr. Haedersdal, who is also a visiting scientist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston. “If patients are treated in areas covered by clothing, it can be greasy and sticky with the cream. In these cases, you can cover the area with Tegaderm, which allows for 99% light transmission. Daylight can shine through and the Tegaderm can be removed after the procedure.”
On rainy days between April 1 and October 1 in Copenhagen, she said, daylight PDT is provided in a greenhouse in the hospital garden, with a heater and blankets for patients when the temperature falls below 10° C.
The amount of light required for a treatment effect is 5,000-10,000 lux, and the number of lux on a sunny day in Denmark is about 100,000, she said. “That means that all year round in countries south of latitude 45 degrees N, patients can be treated with daylight PDT.”
To intensify the treatment efficacy of conventional PDT and daylight PDT, especially in those with severely photodamaged skin, combining treatment with a physical pretreatment technique such as curettage, ablative fractional laser, microdermabrasion, microneedling, and nonablative fractional laser is another strategy. A small randomized controlled trial found that ablative fractional laser treatment extended notable relative effectiveness, compared with other physical enhancement techniques.
Dr. Haedersdal and colleagues published a study that compared pretreatment with ablative fractional laser and microdermabrasion pads before daylight PDT for AKs in field-cancerized skin. They found that with a single treatment, combination therapy with ablative fractional laser before daylight PDT led to significantly greater efficacious AK clearance and skin rejuvenation, compared with treatment with microdermabrasion.
“We don’t know why this is, but we believe it may be due to the fact that with the laser, we have a photothermal response, which in combination with the photochemical response from the photodynamic therapy induces a synergistic effect,” she said.
A range of topical treatments can also be given in combination with PDT. In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials, German researchers evaluated the efficacy of PDT combined with imiquimod cream, 5-fluorouracil cream, tazarotene gel, and calcipotriol ointment. They concluded that the combination of PDT with another topical drug intervention improves AK clearance rates, compared with monotherapy.
More recently, the same authors summarized the current knowledge on the efficacy and safety of local combination therapies for the treatment of patients with AK in a review article, which Dr. Haedersdal said provides a nice overview of this topic.
Dr. Haedersdal disclosed that she has received equipment from Cherry Imaging, Cynosure-Hologic, MiraDry, and PerfAction Technologies. She has also received research grants from Leo Pharma, Lutronic, Mirai Medical, Novoxel, and Venus Concept.
.
“We have conventional PDT, daylight PDT; we can combine with a range of topicals, and we can combine a range of different physical treatment procedures in order to provide better and individualized treatment regimens for our patients,” Merete Haedersdal, MD, PhD, DMSc, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said during a course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.
In Europe, PDT consists of a three-step procedure: curettage of AKs, application of photosensitizer on the skin (typically methyl aminolevulinate, versus aminolevulinic acid, used more often in the United States), and illumination with red light (versus blue light, used more often in the United States), which causes a photochemical reaction.
“It’s a photochemical-reaction concept with which we can achieve up to 90% cure rates of AKs at 3 months,” Dr. Haedersdal said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
PDT is also used in Europe for select patients with Bowen’s disease (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 70% at 2 years); superficial basal cell carcinoma (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 75% at 5 years), and nodular BCC (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 75% at 5 years.
“With conventional PDT, whether it’s blue light, red light, MAL, or ALA, we have beautiful cosmesis, but we also have a challenge, which is pain,” she said. This is behind the motivation to look at other ways to provide PDT.
Daylight PDT, which was pioneered by Dr. Haedersdal’s mentor, Hans Christian Wulf, MD, DMSc, PharmD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, provides 80%-90% clearance of thin AKs, lower clearance of thick AKs – and is a nearly pain-free procedure because of continuous photoactivation of protoporphyrin IX, with a Visual Analog Scale in the range of 1-3. “Globally, thousands of patients have been treated [with daylight PDT], which is backed up in the literature with more than 150 publications,” she said.
According to Dr. Haedersdal, MAL cream with daylight activation for treatment of AK was approved in Colombia and Mexico in 2013; in Australia, Brazil, and Costa Rica in 2014; and in Chile, Europe, and New Zealand in 2015. “I do hope that one day you will have daylight PDT approved in the United States,” she said.
The suggested protocol for daylight PDT starts by applying a sunscreen with an organic filter. After about 15 minutes, the lesion or lesions are prepared, and MAL is applied with no occlusion. Patients should start their exposure to daylight within 30 minutes of application, remaining outdoors for 2 hours of continuous exposure, either at a dedicated space located on the ground of the hospital or clinic or at their home. After 2 hours, patients wipe off the remaining cream and are advised to stay indoors for the rest of the day.
“Ideal candidates are those who have large skin areas that can be easily exposed to sunlight,” such as the scalp and lower legs, said Dr. Haedersdal, who is also a visiting scientist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston. “If patients are treated in areas covered by clothing, it can be greasy and sticky with the cream. In these cases, you can cover the area with Tegaderm, which allows for 99% light transmission. Daylight can shine through and the Tegaderm can be removed after the procedure.”
On rainy days between April 1 and October 1 in Copenhagen, she said, daylight PDT is provided in a greenhouse in the hospital garden, with a heater and blankets for patients when the temperature falls below 10° C.
The amount of light required for a treatment effect is 5,000-10,000 lux, and the number of lux on a sunny day in Denmark is about 100,000, she said. “That means that all year round in countries south of latitude 45 degrees N, patients can be treated with daylight PDT.”
To intensify the treatment efficacy of conventional PDT and daylight PDT, especially in those with severely photodamaged skin, combining treatment with a physical pretreatment technique such as curettage, ablative fractional laser, microdermabrasion, microneedling, and nonablative fractional laser is another strategy. A small randomized controlled trial found that ablative fractional laser treatment extended notable relative effectiveness, compared with other physical enhancement techniques.
Dr. Haedersdal and colleagues published a study that compared pretreatment with ablative fractional laser and microdermabrasion pads before daylight PDT for AKs in field-cancerized skin. They found that with a single treatment, combination therapy with ablative fractional laser before daylight PDT led to significantly greater efficacious AK clearance and skin rejuvenation, compared with treatment with microdermabrasion.
“We don’t know why this is, but we believe it may be due to the fact that with the laser, we have a photothermal response, which in combination with the photochemical response from the photodynamic therapy induces a synergistic effect,” she said.
A range of topical treatments can also be given in combination with PDT. In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials, German researchers evaluated the efficacy of PDT combined with imiquimod cream, 5-fluorouracil cream, tazarotene gel, and calcipotriol ointment. They concluded that the combination of PDT with another topical drug intervention improves AK clearance rates, compared with monotherapy.
More recently, the same authors summarized the current knowledge on the efficacy and safety of local combination therapies for the treatment of patients with AK in a review article, which Dr. Haedersdal said provides a nice overview of this topic.
Dr. Haedersdal disclosed that she has received equipment from Cherry Imaging, Cynosure-Hologic, MiraDry, and PerfAction Technologies. She has also received research grants from Leo Pharma, Lutronic, Mirai Medical, Novoxel, and Venus Concept.
.
“We have conventional PDT, daylight PDT; we can combine with a range of topicals, and we can combine a range of different physical treatment procedures in order to provide better and individualized treatment regimens for our patients,” Merete Haedersdal, MD, PhD, DMSc, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said during a course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.
In Europe, PDT consists of a three-step procedure: curettage of AKs, application of photosensitizer on the skin (typically methyl aminolevulinate, versus aminolevulinic acid, used more often in the United States), and illumination with red light (versus blue light, used more often in the United States), which causes a photochemical reaction.
“It’s a photochemical-reaction concept with which we can achieve up to 90% cure rates of AKs at 3 months,” Dr. Haedersdal said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
PDT is also used in Europe for select patients with Bowen’s disease (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 70% at 2 years); superficial basal cell carcinoma (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 75% at 5 years), and nodular BCC (yielding a 90% cure rate at 3 months, 75% at 5 years.
“With conventional PDT, whether it’s blue light, red light, MAL, or ALA, we have beautiful cosmesis, but we also have a challenge, which is pain,” she said. This is behind the motivation to look at other ways to provide PDT.
Daylight PDT, which was pioneered by Dr. Haedersdal’s mentor, Hans Christian Wulf, MD, DMSc, PharmD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, provides 80%-90% clearance of thin AKs, lower clearance of thick AKs – and is a nearly pain-free procedure because of continuous photoactivation of protoporphyrin IX, with a Visual Analog Scale in the range of 1-3. “Globally, thousands of patients have been treated [with daylight PDT], which is backed up in the literature with more than 150 publications,” she said.
According to Dr. Haedersdal, MAL cream with daylight activation for treatment of AK was approved in Colombia and Mexico in 2013; in Australia, Brazil, and Costa Rica in 2014; and in Chile, Europe, and New Zealand in 2015. “I do hope that one day you will have daylight PDT approved in the United States,” she said.
The suggested protocol for daylight PDT starts by applying a sunscreen with an organic filter. After about 15 minutes, the lesion or lesions are prepared, and MAL is applied with no occlusion. Patients should start their exposure to daylight within 30 minutes of application, remaining outdoors for 2 hours of continuous exposure, either at a dedicated space located on the ground of the hospital or clinic or at their home. After 2 hours, patients wipe off the remaining cream and are advised to stay indoors for the rest of the day.
“Ideal candidates are those who have large skin areas that can be easily exposed to sunlight,” such as the scalp and lower legs, said Dr. Haedersdal, who is also a visiting scientist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston. “If patients are treated in areas covered by clothing, it can be greasy and sticky with the cream. In these cases, you can cover the area with Tegaderm, which allows for 99% light transmission. Daylight can shine through and the Tegaderm can be removed after the procedure.”
On rainy days between April 1 and October 1 in Copenhagen, she said, daylight PDT is provided in a greenhouse in the hospital garden, with a heater and blankets for patients when the temperature falls below 10° C.
The amount of light required for a treatment effect is 5,000-10,000 lux, and the number of lux on a sunny day in Denmark is about 100,000, she said. “That means that all year round in countries south of latitude 45 degrees N, patients can be treated with daylight PDT.”
To intensify the treatment efficacy of conventional PDT and daylight PDT, especially in those with severely photodamaged skin, combining treatment with a physical pretreatment technique such as curettage, ablative fractional laser, microdermabrasion, microneedling, and nonablative fractional laser is another strategy. A small randomized controlled trial found that ablative fractional laser treatment extended notable relative effectiveness, compared with other physical enhancement techniques.
Dr. Haedersdal and colleagues published a study that compared pretreatment with ablative fractional laser and microdermabrasion pads before daylight PDT for AKs in field-cancerized skin. They found that with a single treatment, combination therapy with ablative fractional laser before daylight PDT led to significantly greater efficacious AK clearance and skin rejuvenation, compared with treatment with microdermabrasion.
“We don’t know why this is, but we believe it may be due to the fact that with the laser, we have a photothermal response, which in combination with the photochemical response from the photodynamic therapy induces a synergistic effect,” she said.
A range of topical treatments can also be given in combination with PDT. In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials, German researchers evaluated the efficacy of PDT combined with imiquimod cream, 5-fluorouracil cream, tazarotene gel, and calcipotriol ointment. They concluded that the combination of PDT with another topical drug intervention improves AK clearance rates, compared with monotherapy.
More recently, the same authors summarized the current knowledge on the efficacy and safety of local combination therapies for the treatment of patients with AK in a review article, which Dr. Haedersdal said provides a nice overview of this topic.
Dr. Haedersdal disclosed that she has received equipment from Cherry Imaging, Cynosure-Hologic, MiraDry, and PerfAction Technologies. She has also received research grants from Leo Pharma, Lutronic, Mirai Medical, Novoxel, and Venus Concept.
FROM A LASER & AESTHETIC SKIN THERAPY COURSE
Opioid prescriptions following Mohs surgery dropped over the last decade
by 26.3% between 2009 and 2020, according to a cross-sectional analysis of national insurance claims data.
The findings suggest that dermatologic surgeons generally understood opioid prescription risks and public health warnings about the opioid epidemic, corresponding study author Surya A. Veerabagu said in an interview.
“The frequency of opioid prescriptions after Mohs surgery went up a little bit from 2009 to 2011, but then it subsequently decreased,” said Ms. Veerabagu, a 4th-year student at Tulane University, New Orleans. “It very much correlates with the overarching opioid trends of the time. From 2010 to 2015, research questioning the safety of opioids increased and in 2012, national prescriptions claims for opioids began to decrease. More media outlets voiced concerns over the growing opioid epidemic, as well.”
As she and her associates noted in their study, published online Sept. 22 in JAMA Dermatology, sales of opioids skyrocketed, increasing by 400% from 1999 to 2011, while prescription opioid–related deaths exceeded deaths caused by heroin and cocaine combined.
“In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines to curtail unnecessary opioid prescriptions,” they wrote. “Unfortunately, overdose deaths involving prescription opioids continued to increase even after these measures.”
The researchers drew from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (Optum CDM), a nationally representative insurance claims database, and limited the analysis to 358,012 adults who underwent Mohs surgery and obtained an opioid prescription within 2 days of surgery in the United States from Jan. 1, 2009, to June 1, 2020. They found that 34.6% of patients underwent Mohs surgery with opioid claims in 2009. This rose to a peak of 39.6% in 2011, then decreased annually to a rate of 11.7% in 2020.
The four opioids obtained most during the study period were hydrocodone (55%), codeine (16.3%), oxycodone (12%), and tramadol (11.6%). However, over time, the proportion of patients who obtained hydrocodone fell 21.7% from a peak of 67.1% in 2011 to 45.4% in 2020, while the proportion of patients who obtained tramadol – generally recognized as a safer option – increased 26.3% from a low of 1.6% in 2009 to 27.9% in 2020.
“The switch from very addictive opioids like hydrocodone and oxycodone to weaker opioids like tramadol was fascinating to see,” said Ms. Veerabagu, who conducted the study during her research fellowship in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “I remember at first thinking I had coded the data wrong. I reviewed the results with the team to ensure it was correct. We noticed that propoxyphene prescriptions suddenly dropped to 0% in 2011.” She found that the FDA warning in 2010 and recall regarding the use of propoxyphene because of cardiotoxicity correlated with her data, which, “in addition to the thorough review, convinced me that my coding was correct.” Prior to 2011, propoxyphene constituted 28% of prescriptions in 2009 and 24% of prescriptions in 2010.
In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that the findings support recent opioid prescription recommendations following Mohs and other dermatologic procedures from professional societies including those from the American College of Mohs Surgery.
“More awareness has been raised in the past decade regarding the opioid epidemic and the rise of opioid abuse and deaths,” she said. “There has been increased scrutiny on procedures and prescribing of opioids post procedures.”
State-led efforts to lower the number of opioid prescriptions also play a role. For example, in 2016, Massachusetts launched the Massachusetts Prescription Awareness Tool (MassPAT), which imposes a 7-day limit on first-time prescriptions of opioids to patients and mandates that all prescribers check the prescription drug monitoring program before prescribing schedule II or III substances.
“The MassPAT system also gives you quarterly data on how your opioid prescriptions compare with those of your peers within your specialty and subspecialty,” Dr. Asgari said. “If you’re an outlier, I think that quickly leads you to change your prescribing patterns.”
Dr. Asgari noted that most opioids prescribed in the study by Ms. Veerabagu and colleagues were for cancers that arose on the head and neck. “There is still a perception among providers that cancers that arise in those anatomic sites can potentially cause more discomfort for the patient,” she said. “So, knowing more about the degree of pain among the head and neck cases would be an area of knowledge that would help provider behavior down the line.”
Ms. Veerabagu acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that unfilled prescriptions could not be accounted for, nor could opioids not taken or those obtained without a prescription. “We cannot survey patients in insurance claims database studies, so we have no way of knowing if everyone’s pain was adequately controlled from 2009 to 2020,” she said.
“The main takeaway message is to make sure doctors and patients share an open dialogue,” she added. “Informing patients of the major pros and cons of the appropriate postoperative pain management options available, including opioids’ addiction potential, is crucial. We hope our study adds to the larger continuing conversation of opioid usage within dermatology.”
The study’s senior author was Cerrene N. Giordano, MD, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Coauthor Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, is supported by a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award in Dermatologic Surgery; coauthor Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Thuzar M. Shin, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received support from the Melanoma Research Alliance. She also contributes a chapter on skin cancer to UpToDate, for which she receives royalties.
by 26.3% between 2009 and 2020, according to a cross-sectional analysis of national insurance claims data.
The findings suggest that dermatologic surgeons generally understood opioid prescription risks and public health warnings about the opioid epidemic, corresponding study author Surya A. Veerabagu said in an interview.
“The frequency of opioid prescriptions after Mohs surgery went up a little bit from 2009 to 2011, but then it subsequently decreased,” said Ms. Veerabagu, a 4th-year student at Tulane University, New Orleans. “It very much correlates with the overarching opioid trends of the time. From 2010 to 2015, research questioning the safety of opioids increased and in 2012, national prescriptions claims for opioids began to decrease. More media outlets voiced concerns over the growing opioid epidemic, as well.”
As she and her associates noted in their study, published online Sept. 22 in JAMA Dermatology, sales of opioids skyrocketed, increasing by 400% from 1999 to 2011, while prescription opioid–related deaths exceeded deaths caused by heroin and cocaine combined.
“In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines to curtail unnecessary opioid prescriptions,” they wrote. “Unfortunately, overdose deaths involving prescription opioids continued to increase even after these measures.”
The researchers drew from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (Optum CDM), a nationally representative insurance claims database, and limited the analysis to 358,012 adults who underwent Mohs surgery and obtained an opioid prescription within 2 days of surgery in the United States from Jan. 1, 2009, to June 1, 2020. They found that 34.6% of patients underwent Mohs surgery with opioid claims in 2009. This rose to a peak of 39.6% in 2011, then decreased annually to a rate of 11.7% in 2020.
The four opioids obtained most during the study period were hydrocodone (55%), codeine (16.3%), oxycodone (12%), and tramadol (11.6%). However, over time, the proportion of patients who obtained hydrocodone fell 21.7% from a peak of 67.1% in 2011 to 45.4% in 2020, while the proportion of patients who obtained tramadol – generally recognized as a safer option – increased 26.3% from a low of 1.6% in 2009 to 27.9% in 2020.
“The switch from very addictive opioids like hydrocodone and oxycodone to weaker opioids like tramadol was fascinating to see,” said Ms. Veerabagu, who conducted the study during her research fellowship in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “I remember at first thinking I had coded the data wrong. I reviewed the results with the team to ensure it was correct. We noticed that propoxyphene prescriptions suddenly dropped to 0% in 2011.” She found that the FDA warning in 2010 and recall regarding the use of propoxyphene because of cardiotoxicity correlated with her data, which, “in addition to the thorough review, convinced me that my coding was correct.” Prior to 2011, propoxyphene constituted 28% of prescriptions in 2009 and 24% of prescriptions in 2010.
In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that the findings support recent opioid prescription recommendations following Mohs and other dermatologic procedures from professional societies including those from the American College of Mohs Surgery.
“More awareness has been raised in the past decade regarding the opioid epidemic and the rise of opioid abuse and deaths,” she said. “There has been increased scrutiny on procedures and prescribing of opioids post procedures.”
State-led efforts to lower the number of opioid prescriptions also play a role. For example, in 2016, Massachusetts launched the Massachusetts Prescription Awareness Tool (MassPAT), which imposes a 7-day limit on first-time prescriptions of opioids to patients and mandates that all prescribers check the prescription drug monitoring program before prescribing schedule II or III substances.
“The MassPAT system also gives you quarterly data on how your opioid prescriptions compare with those of your peers within your specialty and subspecialty,” Dr. Asgari said. “If you’re an outlier, I think that quickly leads you to change your prescribing patterns.”
Dr. Asgari noted that most opioids prescribed in the study by Ms. Veerabagu and colleagues were for cancers that arose on the head and neck. “There is still a perception among providers that cancers that arise in those anatomic sites can potentially cause more discomfort for the patient,” she said. “So, knowing more about the degree of pain among the head and neck cases would be an area of knowledge that would help provider behavior down the line.”
Ms. Veerabagu acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that unfilled prescriptions could not be accounted for, nor could opioids not taken or those obtained without a prescription. “We cannot survey patients in insurance claims database studies, so we have no way of knowing if everyone’s pain was adequately controlled from 2009 to 2020,” she said.
“The main takeaway message is to make sure doctors and patients share an open dialogue,” she added. “Informing patients of the major pros and cons of the appropriate postoperative pain management options available, including opioids’ addiction potential, is crucial. We hope our study adds to the larger continuing conversation of opioid usage within dermatology.”
The study’s senior author was Cerrene N. Giordano, MD, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Coauthor Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, is supported by a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award in Dermatologic Surgery; coauthor Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Thuzar M. Shin, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received support from the Melanoma Research Alliance. She also contributes a chapter on skin cancer to UpToDate, for which she receives royalties.
by 26.3% between 2009 and 2020, according to a cross-sectional analysis of national insurance claims data.
The findings suggest that dermatologic surgeons generally understood opioid prescription risks and public health warnings about the opioid epidemic, corresponding study author Surya A. Veerabagu said in an interview.
“The frequency of opioid prescriptions after Mohs surgery went up a little bit from 2009 to 2011, but then it subsequently decreased,” said Ms. Veerabagu, a 4th-year student at Tulane University, New Orleans. “It very much correlates with the overarching opioid trends of the time. From 2010 to 2015, research questioning the safety of opioids increased and in 2012, national prescriptions claims for opioids began to decrease. More media outlets voiced concerns over the growing opioid epidemic, as well.”
As she and her associates noted in their study, published online Sept. 22 in JAMA Dermatology, sales of opioids skyrocketed, increasing by 400% from 1999 to 2011, while prescription opioid–related deaths exceeded deaths caused by heroin and cocaine combined.
“In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines to curtail unnecessary opioid prescriptions,” they wrote. “Unfortunately, overdose deaths involving prescription opioids continued to increase even after these measures.”
The researchers drew from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (Optum CDM), a nationally representative insurance claims database, and limited the analysis to 358,012 adults who underwent Mohs surgery and obtained an opioid prescription within 2 days of surgery in the United States from Jan. 1, 2009, to June 1, 2020. They found that 34.6% of patients underwent Mohs surgery with opioid claims in 2009. This rose to a peak of 39.6% in 2011, then decreased annually to a rate of 11.7% in 2020.
The four opioids obtained most during the study period were hydrocodone (55%), codeine (16.3%), oxycodone (12%), and tramadol (11.6%). However, over time, the proportion of patients who obtained hydrocodone fell 21.7% from a peak of 67.1% in 2011 to 45.4% in 2020, while the proportion of patients who obtained tramadol – generally recognized as a safer option – increased 26.3% from a low of 1.6% in 2009 to 27.9% in 2020.
“The switch from very addictive opioids like hydrocodone and oxycodone to weaker opioids like tramadol was fascinating to see,” said Ms. Veerabagu, who conducted the study during her research fellowship in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “I remember at first thinking I had coded the data wrong. I reviewed the results with the team to ensure it was correct. We noticed that propoxyphene prescriptions suddenly dropped to 0% in 2011.” She found that the FDA warning in 2010 and recall regarding the use of propoxyphene because of cardiotoxicity correlated with her data, which, “in addition to the thorough review, convinced me that my coding was correct.” Prior to 2011, propoxyphene constituted 28% of prescriptions in 2009 and 24% of prescriptions in 2010.
In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that the findings support recent opioid prescription recommendations following Mohs and other dermatologic procedures from professional societies including those from the American College of Mohs Surgery.
“More awareness has been raised in the past decade regarding the opioid epidemic and the rise of opioid abuse and deaths,” she said. “There has been increased scrutiny on procedures and prescribing of opioids post procedures.”
State-led efforts to lower the number of opioid prescriptions also play a role. For example, in 2016, Massachusetts launched the Massachusetts Prescription Awareness Tool (MassPAT), which imposes a 7-day limit on first-time prescriptions of opioids to patients and mandates that all prescribers check the prescription drug monitoring program before prescribing schedule II or III substances.
“The MassPAT system also gives you quarterly data on how your opioid prescriptions compare with those of your peers within your specialty and subspecialty,” Dr. Asgari said. “If you’re an outlier, I think that quickly leads you to change your prescribing patterns.”
Dr. Asgari noted that most opioids prescribed in the study by Ms. Veerabagu and colleagues were for cancers that arose on the head and neck. “There is still a perception among providers that cancers that arise in those anatomic sites can potentially cause more discomfort for the patient,” she said. “So, knowing more about the degree of pain among the head and neck cases would be an area of knowledge that would help provider behavior down the line.”
Ms. Veerabagu acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that unfilled prescriptions could not be accounted for, nor could opioids not taken or those obtained without a prescription. “We cannot survey patients in insurance claims database studies, so we have no way of knowing if everyone’s pain was adequately controlled from 2009 to 2020,” she said.
“The main takeaway message is to make sure doctors and patients share an open dialogue,” she added. “Informing patients of the major pros and cons of the appropriate postoperative pain management options available, including opioids’ addiction potential, is crucial. We hope our study adds to the larger continuing conversation of opioid usage within dermatology.”
The study’s senior author was Cerrene N. Giordano, MD, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Coauthor Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, is supported by a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Award in Dermatologic Surgery; coauthor Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Thuzar M. Shin, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received support from the Melanoma Research Alliance. She also contributes a chapter on skin cancer to UpToDate, for which she receives royalties.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
NIAMS director reflects on her mentors, spotlights research projects underway
After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.
“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.
Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.
Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.
What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.
Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.
What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.
How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.
The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.
The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.
The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).
Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.
What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.
Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.
Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.
During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.
What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.
Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.
Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.
Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.
After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.
“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.
Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.
Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.
What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.
Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.
What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.
How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.
The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.
The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.
The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).
Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.
What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.
Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.
Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.
During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.
What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.
Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.
Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.
Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.
After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.
“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.
Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.
Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.
What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.
Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.
What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.
How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.
The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.
The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.
The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).
Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.
What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.
Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.
Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.
During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.
What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.
Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.
Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.
Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.
More severe psoriasis linked to an increased risk of PsA
Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.
The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.
For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.
A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.
The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.
When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.
Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.
Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.
“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.
Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”
The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.
Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.
The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.
For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.
A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.
The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.
When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.
Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.
Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.
“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.
Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”
The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.
Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.
The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.
For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.
A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.
The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.
When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.
Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.
Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.
“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.
Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”
The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
FDA issues proposed order for over-the-counter sunscreens
Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.
“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.
When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.
It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”
The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”
The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.
Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”
Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.
Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”
The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.
Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.
Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.
“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.
When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.
It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”
The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”
The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.
Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”
Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.
Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”
The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.
Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.
Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.
“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.
When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.
It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”
The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”
The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.
Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”
Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.
Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”
The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.
Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.