Dermatology News

DENVER – A stepwise method that combines surgical debulking and fractionated ablative laser was effective for treating elderly individuals with severe rhinophyma, results from a series of three patients demonstrated.

Rhinophyma occurs primarily in the sixth and seventh decades of life and is marked by facial hypertrophy that leads to tumor-like growth, inflammation, fibrosis, and loss of the cosmetic nasal subunits. “When it becomes severe it leads to a degree of embarrassment as well,” one of the study authors, Patricia Richey, MD, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “We found that our method has been efficacious, but most often, and more importantly, leads to an improvement in the patient’s quality of life.”

To date, clinicians have used fully ablative lasers to treat varying degrees of rhinophyma but at a cost of prolonged healing time and higher rates of scarring and pigment or textural changes. However, not all dermatologists use full-field ablative lasers in their practices.

“Fractionated ablative lasers have been used in the past for mild to moderate rhinophyma, but they cannot ablate to 100% density, which would be necessary to debulk the marked hypertrophy present in our patients,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “That’s why we added a surgical component.”

She and colleague Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, developed a three-step method for treating severe rhinophyma that they performed on three elderly patients. Step 1 is the surgical debulk. Following infiltration of local anesthesia, a razor blade or 15-blade is used to excise the most prominent lobules of hypertrophied sebaceous tissue down to the fibrofatty layer of the nose as a partial thickness excision that does not reach the level of the perichondrium or cartilage. “Hemostasis is achieved with electrocoagulation and application of petrolatum ointment, followed by a pressure dressing,” Dr. Richey said. “The location of the debulk varies by patient.”

Step 2 involves fractionated ablative laser treatment 4 weeks later with either the CO₂ or erbium:YAG (Er:YAG) 2,940-nm laser. According to Dr. Richey, the typical setting for the fractionated CO₂ is a fluence of 70mJ/cm² and a high density, performing six out of four passes with 60 seconds between each pass, “though these settings may vary based on the patient presentation,” she said.

The treatment level ranges from 5 (14% density) to 10 (70% density, for the most severe cases). Meanwhile, a representative setting for the ablative fractionated Er:YAG 2,940-nm laser is 250 mcm, no coagulation, 5.5% density, and one pass. “If a second surgical debulk is performed on the same day as ablative laser treatment, the sites of shave removal are typically avoided with the laser,” she said. If a certain portion of the nose has recently healed following surgical debulk 4 weeks prior, they may perform only two passes in this region.

In an interview, Dr. Avram, who directs the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, characterized the staged method as providing “transformative change to severe, cosmetically disfiguring rhinophyma. The ablative fractional laser provides more fine-tuned contouring.”

The three patients studied had an average of three to four monthly treatments. “There is typically a great deal of improvement by the second treatment,” Dr. Richey said. Add-on treatments may include low voltage electrodessication at 1.8 watts for patients with well-demarcated papules of sebaceous hyperplasia, and a vascular laser such as the pulsed dye laser if telangiectasias are present.

One limitation of the stepwise method, she said, is that the surgical debulk typically results in a scar, “but it’s rarely noticeable if carefully performed, likely due to fractionated ablative use during the scar remodeling period. It’s important to set expectations with your patient at the initial consult. We always discuss treatment goals and that while we aim achieve the most desirable outcome possible, we’re never going to get them back to having a completely normal nose. They’re always going to have some mild or moderate rhinophymatous changes present.”

Vincent Richer, MD, a Vancouver-based medical and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on these results, characterized the stepwise method as promising. “Though more treatments are required, the easier recovery, safe outcomes in the case presented and excellent cosmetic result made it an interesting alternative when fully ablative resurfacing is daunting, either for patients or physicians involved,” he said in an interview.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Richer disclosed that he performs clinical trials for AbbVie/Allergan, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and is a member of advisory board for Bausch, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, and Sanofi. He is also a consultant to AbbVie/Allergan, Bausch, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, Merz, and Sanofi.

DENVER – A stepwise method that combines surgical debulking and fractionated ablative laser was effective for treating elderly individuals with severe rhinophyma, results from a series of three patients demonstrated.

Rhinophyma occurs primarily in the sixth and seventh decades of life and is marked by facial hypertrophy that leads to tumor-like growth, inflammation, fibrosis, and loss of the cosmetic nasal subunits. “When it becomes severe it leads to a degree of embarrassment as well,” one of the study authors, Patricia Richey, MD, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “We found that our method has been efficacious, but most often, and more importantly, leads to an improvement in the patient’s quality of life.”

To date, clinicians have used fully ablative lasers to treat varying degrees of rhinophyma but at a cost of prolonged healing time and higher rates of scarring and pigment or textural changes. However, not all dermatologists use full-field ablative lasers in their practices.

“Fractionated ablative lasers have been used in the past for mild to moderate rhinophyma, but they cannot ablate to 100% density, which would be necessary to debulk the marked hypertrophy present in our patients,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “That’s why we added a surgical component.”

She and colleague Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, developed a three-step method for treating severe rhinophyma that they performed on three elderly patients. Step 1 is the surgical debulk. Following infiltration of local anesthesia, a razor blade or 15-blade is used to excise the most prominent lobules of hypertrophied sebaceous tissue down to the fibrofatty layer of the nose as a partial thickness excision that does not reach the level of the perichondrium or cartilage. “Hemostasis is achieved with electrocoagulation and application of petrolatum ointment, followed by a pressure dressing,” Dr. Richey said. “The location of the debulk varies by patient.”

Step 2 involves fractionated ablative laser treatment 4 weeks later with either the CO₂ or erbium:YAG (Er:YAG) 2,940-nm laser. According to Dr. Richey, the typical setting for the fractionated CO₂ is a fluence of 70mJ/cm² and a high density, performing six out of four passes with 60 seconds between each pass, “though these settings may vary based on the patient presentation,” she said.

The treatment level ranges from 5 (14% density) to 10 (70% density, for the most severe cases). Meanwhile, a representative setting for the ablative fractionated Er:YAG 2,940-nm laser is 250 mcm, no coagulation, 5.5% density, and one pass. “If a second surgical debulk is performed on the same day as ablative laser treatment, the sites of shave removal are typically avoided with the laser,” she said. If a certain portion of the nose has recently healed following surgical debulk 4 weeks prior, they may perform only two passes in this region.

In an interview, Dr. Avram, who directs the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, characterized the staged method as providing “transformative change to severe, cosmetically disfiguring rhinophyma. The ablative fractional laser provides more fine-tuned contouring.”

The three patients studied had an average of three to four monthly treatments. “There is typically a great deal of improvement by the second treatment,” Dr. Richey said. Add-on treatments may include low voltage electrodessication at 1.8 watts for patients with well-demarcated papules of sebaceous hyperplasia, and a vascular laser such as the pulsed dye laser if telangiectasias are present.

One limitation of the stepwise method, she said, is that the surgical debulk typically results in a scar, “but it’s rarely noticeable if carefully performed, likely due to fractionated ablative use during the scar remodeling period. It’s important to set expectations with your patient at the initial consult. We always discuss treatment goals and that while we aim achieve the most desirable outcome possible, we’re never going to get them back to having a completely normal nose. They’re always going to have some mild or moderate rhinophymatous changes present.”

Vincent Richer, MD, a Vancouver-based medical and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on these results, characterized the stepwise method as promising. “Though more treatments are required, the easier recovery, safe outcomes in the case presented and excellent cosmetic result made it an interesting alternative when fully ablative resurfacing is daunting, either for patients or physicians involved,” he said in an interview.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Richer disclosed that he performs clinical trials for AbbVie/Allergan, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and is a member of advisory board for Bausch, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, and Sanofi. He is also a consultant to AbbVie/Allergan, Bausch, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, Merz, and Sanofi.

DENVER – A stepwise method that combines surgical debulking and fractionated ablative laser was effective for treating elderly individuals with severe rhinophyma, results from a series of three patients demonstrated.

Rhinophyma occurs primarily in the sixth and seventh decades of life and is marked by facial hypertrophy that leads to tumor-like growth, inflammation, fibrosis, and loss of the cosmetic nasal subunits. “When it becomes severe it leads to a degree of embarrassment as well,” one of the study authors, Patricia Richey, MD, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “We found that our method has been efficacious, but most often, and more importantly, leads to an improvement in the patient’s quality of life.”

To date, clinicians have used fully ablative lasers to treat varying degrees of rhinophyma but at a cost of prolonged healing time and higher rates of scarring and pigment or textural changes. However, not all dermatologists use full-field ablative lasers in their practices.

“Fractionated ablative lasers have been used in the past for mild to moderate rhinophyma, but they cannot ablate to 100% density, which would be necessary to debulk the marked hypertrophy present in our patients,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “That’s why we added a surgical component.”

She and colleague Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, developed a three-step method for treating severe rhinophyma that they performed on three elderly patients. Step 1 is the surgical debulk. Following infiltration of local anesthesia, a razor blade or 15-blade is used to excise the most prominent lobules of hypertrophied sebaceous tissue down to the fibrofatty layer of the nose as a partial thickness excision that does not reach the level of the perichondrium or cartilage. “Hemostasis is achieved with electrocoagulation and application of petrolatum ointment, followed by a pressure dressing,” Dr. Richey said. “The location of the debulk varies by patient.”

Step 2 involves fractionated ablative laser treatment 4 weeks later with either the CO₂ or erbium:YAG (Er:YAG) 2,940-nm laser. According to Dr. Richey, the typical setting for the fractionated CO₂ is a fluence of 70mJ/cm² and a high density, performing six out of four passes with 60 seconds between each pass, “though these settings may vary based on the patient presentation,” she said.

The treatment level ranges from 5 (14% density) to 10 (70% density, for the most severe cases). Meanwhile, a representative setting for the ablative fractionated Er:YAG 2,940-nm laser is 250 mcm, no coagulation, 5.5% density, and one pass. “If a second surgical debulk is performed on the same day as ablative laser treatment, the sites of shave removal are typically avoided with the laser,” she said. If a certain portion of the nose has recently healed following surgical debulk 4 weeks prior, they may perform only two passes in this region.

In an interview, Dr. Avram, who directs the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, characterized the staged method as providing “transformative change to severe, cosmetically disfiguring rhinophyma. The ablative fractional laser provides more fine-tuned contouring.”

The three patients studied had an average of three to four monthly treatments. “There is typically a great deal of improvement by the second treatment,” Dr. Richey said. Add-on treatments may include low voltage electrodessication at 1.8 watts for patients with well-demarcated papules of sebaceous hyperplasia, and a vascular laser such as the pulsed dye laser if telangiectasias are present.

One limitation of the stepwise method, she said, is that the surgical debulk typically results in a scar, “but it’s rarely noticeable if carefully performed, likely due to fractionated ablative use during the scar remodeling period. It’s important to set expectations with your patient at the initial consult. We always discuss treatment goals and that while we aim achieve the most desirable outcome possible, we’re never going to get them back to having a completely normal nose. They’re always going to have some mild or moderate rhinophymatous changes present.”

Vincent Richer, MD, a Vancouver-based medical and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on these results, characterized the stepwise method as promising. “Though more treatments are required, the easier recovery, safe outcomes in the case presented and excellent cosmetic result made it an interesting alternative when fully ablative resurfacing is daunting, either for patients or physicians involved,” he said in an interview.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Richer disclosed that he performs clinical trials for AbbVie/Allergan, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and is a member of advisory board for Bausch, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, and Sanofi. He is also a consultant to AbbVie/Allergan, Bausch, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, Merz, and Sanofi.

A commentary published across four dermatology journals in September urges dermatologists and their medical societies to “engage more meaningfully” on climate change issues, “moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.

Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.

“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”

Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.

The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
 

‘A threat multiplier’

The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.

In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.

However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”

Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.

In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.

Petmal/iStock/Getty Images

In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.

But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.

Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.


 

AAD actions

In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”

Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”

The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.

The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.

And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
 

‘Be part of the solution’

In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.

In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”

Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”

Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”

Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.

A commentary published across four dermatology journals in September urges dermatologists and their medical societies to “engage more meaningfully” on climate change issues, “moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.

Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.

“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”

Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.

The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
 

‘A threat multiplier’

The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.

In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.

However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”

Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.

In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.

Petmal/iStock/Getty Images

In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.

But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.

Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.


 

AAD actions

In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”

Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”

The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.

The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.

And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
 

‘Be part of the solution’

In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.

In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”

Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”

Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”

Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.

A commentary published across four dermatology journals in September urges dermatologists and their medical societies to “engage more meaningfully” on climate change issues, “moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.

Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.

“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”

Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.

The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
 

‘A threat multiplier’

The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.

In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.

However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”

Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.

In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.

Petmal/iStock/Getty Images

In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.

But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.

Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.


 

AAD actions

In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”

Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”

The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.

The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.

And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
 

‘Be part of the solution’

In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.

In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”

Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”

Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”

Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.

In November 2021, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) announced that it had designated 31 institutions across the United States as “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” More than just a stamp of approval, the new NORD network aims to change the way rare diseases are diagnosed and treated, creating more efficient pathways for collaboration among physicians, while helping patients get better care closer to home.

To understand better how the nascent network can benefit patients and clinicians, Neurology Reviews/MDedge Neurology spoke with Ed Neilan, MD, PhD, NORD’s chief scientific and medical officer. Dr. Neilan, a pediatrician and geneticist, is a former president of the medical staff at Boston Children’s Hospital and also served as head of global medical affairs for rare neurology at Sanofi Genzyme.

How did NORD choose its 31 centers?

We were looking for places that had both broad capabilities and deep expertise, where it was reasonable to expect that a patient with almost any condition could go and, without too many missteps or delays, get the right diagnosis or the right treatment. We also sought sites that were educating the next generation of rare disease specialists across departments. The sites had to be involved in research, because that moves the field forward, and sometimes it’s the only way to get a really impactful treatment for the 95% of rare diseases that don’t have an FDA-approved treatment. NORD sent a letter inviting different centers to apply, along with an application that had 120 questions. Most of the questions sought information about what kinds of expertise or services were available on-site, so that patients don’t have to go elsewhere to get, let’s say, a brain MRI scan or to see an immunologist. We wanted each site to be a place where you could go for almost any problem, at any age, and expect that while you’re being seen, and receiving treatment, it can also contribute to the education of the next generation of rare disease specialists and to research.

Several of the members of the network comprise more than one institution: They’re a children’s hospital combined with another facility.

Children’s hospitals, which are highly specialized and able to care for rare things in children, couldn’t apply by themselves. They had to apply in partnership with a center that could provide adult care as patients got older; otherwise, their care model would be incomplete. We’ve had some small victories already just by asking these questions and outlining this sort of approach. At one institution in the Great Plains, the director told us that he had been trying for years to get permission to hire someone who could make appointments across three different hospitals – a children’s hospital and two adult hospitals. He’d wanted to ensure that patients with rare and genetic diseases were seen in the appropriate places, and thanks to the NORD designation, he finally can. Now, regardless of age, the same office staff can handle the arrangements, and the patient will be scheduled in the right place.

You make clear that these are different from disease-specific centers of excellence – you specifically chose the 31 centers for their breadth of expertise. There’s no way to represent all 7,000 rare diseases equally, and disease-specific centers of excellence, which already exist for hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and some other conditions, have a very important role. We’re not aiming to compete with any other existing resources. What we are seeking to do is to fill the unmet need of, “What if there are no such designations for the disease that you’re concerned about?” Our goal was to find places that could help with unanswered questions, whether diagnostic questions or treatment questions. To identify places where a patient could reasonably expect to go and have a deeper dive – maybe an interdisciplinary deep dive.

The delay to diagnosis can be years in rare diseases. How can the network help speed up diagnoses?

With all these experts on different diseases, we hope to develop some better diagnostic algorithms within the network. Another thing we can do is to share resources. With 31 sites, everybody’s seeing patients with unknown diagnoses. Everyone is seeing patients for whom they would maybe like to get a whole genome done, or a whole exome done, but they are often encountering stiff resistance from insurance companies.

Meanwhile some sites, but not all 31, have multimillion-dollar grants to do sequencing and other kinds of advanced diagnostic tests to solve unknown cases. And there are people at those sites who say, “We need more samples. Can you get us samples from the other sites?”

One of the main things we aim to do is share information, including information about available diagnostic resources. We want all 31 sites to know which sites have funding and programs that enable them to study samples for other sites. We also want to know what criteria they’re putting on it. Someone might say: “I’ve got a grant to sequence genomes for people with unexplained seizures. Send me all your unexplained seizures.” Somebody else might have a grant for unexplained GI diseases. So, we want to put on our intranet a resource for the 31 sites, kind of a cookbook for – when if you can’t get it paid for by insurance, but you really think you need a particular special test – who might be able to do it for you within the network.

This would seem to benefit research across sites as well.

Yes, but we also want to share clinical advice and expertise for direct patient benefit. So, it doesn’t always have to fulfill the goals of a specific research project. For example, we might be able to create an undiagnosed patient quality improvement database across all 31 sites that could compliantly let Drs. X and Y know that they’re each seeing a patient with the same rare thing.

But let’s say you want to move the field forward by discovering a new disease. Rare genetic diseases are now being discovered at the rate of about 250 a year, so about 5 per week across the world. With two or three unrelated patients who have the same disease and a whole exome sequence, you can potentially discover a disease. Maybe you’ve found one unique patient with a genetic variant of possible significance, but you can’t be 100% sure, and you may not be able to convince your colleagues, or journal editors, until you find other cases. You need those two or three ultrarare patients. Within this network, a lot of sites want to share information about their ultrarare patients and be able to put together additional instances of the same thing, to prove that it is a real disease, to learn more about it and how to diagnose, manage, and treat it.

Part of the idea with a nationwide network is that patients aren’t going to have to move around among these centers of excellence, is that correct? They’re going to be seen at the closest ones, and it’s the expertise that is mobile.

Yes, that’s right. While we can’t eliminate the need for travel, what we are trying to do is increase the sharing of expertise, to improve results for patients while limiting the need for traveling very long distances. As a geneticist I’ve been on both the requesting and the receiving end of consultations with doctors at other sites, sometimes very far away, especially for ultrarare conditions for which any one physician’s experience is limited. We all try to honor these sorts of requests, but insurance doesn’t reimburse it and so hospitals don’t give doctors much credit for it.

We want to ultimately find ways to incentivize this type of collaboration. Hopefully we can get agreements with insurance companies to allow intersite consultations within our network, recognizing that they don’t want to pay for the patient to be seen out of state, but you also want the patient to get the best possible medical advice. This might require legislative changes in the long run. But what we can do more readily is create a culture within this network of mutual consultation and sharing of clinical experience. Outside of such a network, the idea of “cold calling” somebody, whom you may never have met, and asking them for help and free advice is a little bit of a bar, right? We want to lower that bar.

Can patients get telemedicine consults with physicians across the network?

NORD supports having telemedicine options for everybody regardless of diagnosis, rare or not, and we support legislation that would continue access and reimbursement for telemedicine post pandemic. I hope we can get that, or at least preserve telemedicine for rare diseases, for which there are often not enough, or sometimes not any, expert providers in the same state. Ultimately, we want patients to be able to get the expert assessments and advice they need. For rare diseases, that sometimes means battling back and forth with an insurance provider, seeking permission to see an expert clinician a thousand miles away. By sharing medical expertise, and through telemedicine when that’s allowed, we hope to reduce the need for that. But the telemedicine environment is still evolving and somewhat uncertain.

How will the network’s physician collaborations take place?

One of the important things NORD is providing to the network is an information technology setup and intranet across the 31 sites. That intranet is where center staff will go to access the network’s internal resources, including live and recorded case conferences. In those case conferences you can present a case you haven’t been able to solve. Experts you may have only heard of by reputation will now be streamed to your computer as part of the nationwide network. It benefits the patient because you get additional expert opinions, but it also benefits the physicians because we have this collegial space for discussion and learning. We’ll be linked by frequent meetings – some in person, most virtual – a common culture, and a common intranet.

On the intranet, we will also have a growing set of useful databases, links, and documents that are available to all members. These will be progressively updated with help from experts at the centers, so that clinicians can more directly learn from each other, instead of separately reinventing the wheel. The way things usually work, when you see a patient with an ultrarare condition that you’re not that familiar with, is that you tell them what little you can, then schedule them to come back in a few weeks. In the meantime, usually in your off time, you spend hours searching PubMed and other sources and you try to piece things together, to figure out what’s known that might help your patient. But imagine that this has already been figured out by someone else in the network. You can see on the network a list of articles the other expert read and found helpful in addressing this problem. And you then reach out directly to that other expert.

In recent months you’ve had one-on-one meetings with all 31 directors at the sites, and after that you convened 11 working groups. What are you trying to achieve?

Once the sites were chosen, we aimed to talk quickly and honestly about what everyone needed, what everyone saw as the biggest problems to tackle in rare diseases. Two things were very rewarding about those phone calls: one, all the centers were very enthusiastic, and two, they pretty much all agreed on what the key unmet needs are for rare disease patients and the practitioners trying to help them. So, we empaneled working groups of expert volunteers enthusiastic to work on each of those problems. These groups collectively comprise more than 200 volunteers – faculty, staff, and trainees – from the different sites nationwide. Each group is working on a key unmet need in rare diseases, and each group will be given its own space on our file-sharing platform, where they can share information and co-develop new ideas and documents. When something they produce is good enough to start to be a practice resource, such as a draft treatment guideline that the working group now wants to try in the real world, but it’s not yet ready to be published, they can share it and have it tested by all 31 sites through the dedicated intranet we are building for the network.

Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.

In November 2021, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) announced that it had designated 31 institutions across the United States as “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” More than just a stamp of approval, the new NORD network aims to change the way rare diseases are diagnosed and treated, creating more efficient pathways for collaboration among physicians, while helping patients get better care closer to home.

To understand better how the nascent network can benefit patients and clinicians, Neurology Reviews/MDedge Neurology spoke with Ed Neilan, MD, PhD, NORD’s chief scientific and medical officer. Dr. Neilan, a pediatrician and geneticist, is a former president of the medical staff at Boston Children’s Hospital and also served as head of global medical affairs for rare neurology at Sanofi Genzyme.

How did NORD choose its 31 centers?

We were looking for places that had both broad capabilities and deep expertise, where it was reasonable to expect that a patient with almost any condition could go and, without too many missteps or delays, get the right diagnosis or the right treatment. We also sought sites that were educating the next generation of rare disease specialists across departments. The sites had to be involved in research, because that moves the field forward, and sometimes it’s the only way to get a really impactful treatment for the 95% of rare diseases that don’t have an FDA-approved treatment. NORD sent a letter inviting different centers to apply, along with an application that had 120 questions. Most of the questions sought information about what kinds of expertise or services were available on-site, so that patients don’t have to go elsewhere to get, let’s say, a brain MRI scan or to see an immunologist. We wanted each site to be a place where you could go for almost any problem, at any age, and expect that while you’re being seen, and receiving treatment, it can also contribute to the education of the next generation of rare disease specialists and to research.

Several of the members of the network comprise more than one institution: They’re a children’s hospital combined with another facility.

Children’s hospitals, which are highly specialized and able to care for rare things in children, couldn’t apply by themselves. They had to apply in partnership with a center that could provide adult care as patients got older; otherwise, their care model would be incomplete. We’ve had some small victories already just by asking these questions and outlining this sort of approach. At one institution in the Great Plains, the director told us that he had been trying for years to get permission to hire someone who could make appointments across three different hospitals – a children’s hospital and two adult hospitals. He’d wanted to ensure that patients with rare and genetic diseases were seen in the appropriate places, and thanks to the NORD designation, he finally can. Now, regardless of age, the same office staff can handle the arrangements, and the patient will be scheduled in the right place.

You make clear that these are different from disease-specific centers of excellence – you specifically chose the 31 centers for their breadth of expertise. There’s no way to represent all 7,000 rare diseases equally, and disease-specific centers of excellence, which already exist for hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and some other conditions, have a very important role. We’re not aiming to compete with any other existing resources. What we are seeking to do is to fill the unmet need of, “What if there are no such designations for the disease that you’re concerned about?” Our goal was to find places that could help with unanswered questions, whether diagnostic questions or treatment questions. To identify places where a patient could reasonably expect to go and have a deeper dive – maybe an interdisciplinary deep dive.

The delay to diagnosis can be years in rare diseases. How can the network help speed up diagnoses?

With all these experts on different diseases, we hope to develop some better diagnostic algorithms within the network. Another thing we can do is to share resources. With 31 sites, everybody’s seeing patients with unknown diagnoses. Everyone is seeing patients for whom they would maybe like to get a whole genome done, or a whole exome done, but they are often encountering stiff resistance from insurance companies.

Meanwhile some sites, but not all 31, have multimillion-dollar grants to do sequencing and other kinds of advanced diagnostic tests to solve unknown cases. And there are people at those sites who say, “We need more samples. Can you get us samples from the other sites?”

One of the main things we aim to do is share information, including information about available diagnostic resources. We want all 31 sites to know which sites have funding and programs that enable them to study samples for other sites. We also want to know what criteria they’re putting on it. Someone might say: “I’ve got a grant to sequence genomes for people with unexplained seizures. Send me all your unexplained seizures.” Somebody else might have a grant for unexplained GI diseases. So, we want to put on our intranet a resource for the 31 sites, kind of a cookbook for – when if you can’t get it paid for by insurance, but you really think you need a particular special test – who might be able to do it for you within the network.

This would seem to benefit research across sites as well.

Yes, but we also want to share clinical advice and expertise for direct patient benefit. So, it doesn’t always have to fulfill the goals of a specific research project. For example, we might be able to create an undiagnosed patient quality improvement database across all 31 sites that could compliantly let Drs. X and Y know that they’re each seeing a patient with the same rare thing.

But let’s say you want to move the field forward by discovering a new disease. Rare genetic diseases are now being discovered at the rate of about 250 a year, so about 5 per week across the world. With two or three unrelated patients who have the same disease and a whole exome sequence, you can potentially discover a disease. Maybe you’ve found one unique patient with a genetic variant of possible significance, but you can’t be 100% sure, and you may not be able to convince your colleagues, or journal editors, until you find other cases. You need those two or three ultrarare patients. Within this network, a lot of sites want to share information about their ultrarare patients and be able to put together additional instances of the same thing, to prove that it is a real disease, to learn more about it and how to diagnose, manage, and treat it.

Part of the idea with a nationwide network is that patients aren’t going to have to move around among these centers of excellence, is that correct? They’re going to be seen at the closest ones, and it’s the expertise that is mobile.

Yes, that’s right. While we can’t eliminate the need for travel, what we are trying to do is increase the sharing of expertise, to improve results for patients while limiting the need for traveling very long distances. As a geneticist I’ve been on both the requesting and the receiving end of consultations with doctors at other sites, sometimes very far away, especially for ultrarare conditions for which any one physician’s experience is limited. We all try to honor these sorts of requests, but insurance doesn’t reimburse it and so hospitals don’t give doctors much credit for it.

We want to ultimately find ways to incentivize this type of collaboration. Hopefully we can get agreements with insurance companies to allow intersite consultations within our network, recognizing that they don’t want to pay for the patient to be seen out of state, but you also want the patient to get the best possible medical advice. This might require legislative changes in the long run. But what we can do more readily is create a culture within this network of mutual consultation and sharing of clinical experience. Outside of such a network, the idea of “cold calling” somebody, whom you may never have met, and asking them for help and free advice is a little bit of a bar, right? We want to lower that bar.

Can patients get telemedicine consults with physicians across the network?

NORD supports having telemedicine options for everybody regardless of diagnosis, rare or not, and we support legislation that would continue access and reimbursement for telemedicine post pandemic. I hope we can get that, or at least preserve telemedicine for rare diseases, for which there are often not enough, or sometimes not any, expert providers in the same state. Ultimately, we want patients to be able to get the expert assessments and advice they need. For rare diseases, that sometimes means battling back and forth with an insurance provider, seeking permission to see an expert clinician a thousand miles away. By sharing medical expertise, and through telemedicine when that’s allowed, we hope to reduce the need for that. But the telemedicine environment is still evolving and somewhat uncertain.

How will the network’s physician collaborations take place?

One of the important things NORD is providing to the network is an information technology setup and intranet across the 31 sites. That intranet is where center staff will go to access the network’s internal resources, including live and recorded case conferences. In those case conferences you can present a case you haven’t been able to solve. Experts you may have only heard of by reputation will now be streamed to your computer as part of the nationwide network. It benefits the patient because you get additional expert opinions, but it also benefits the physicians because we have this collegial space for discussion and learning. We’ll be linked by frequent meetings – some in person, most virtual – a common culture, and a common intranet.

On the intranet, we will also have a growing set of useful databases, links, and documents that are available to all members. These will be progressively updated with help from experts at the centers, so that clinicians can more directly learn from each other, instead of separately reinventing the wheel. The way things usually work, when you see a patient with an ultrarare condition that you’re not that familiar with, is that you tell them what little you can, then schedule them to come back in a few weeks. In the meantime, usually in your off time, you spend hours searching PubMed and other sources and you try to piece things together, to figure out what’s known that might help your patient. But imagine that this has already been figured out by someone else in the network. You can see on the network a list of articles the other expert read and found helpful in addressing this problem. And you then reach out directly to that other expert.

In recent months you’ve had one-on-one meetings with all 31 directors at the sites, and after that you convened 11 working groups. What are you trying to achieve?

Once the sites were chosen, we aimed to talk quickly and honestly about what everyone needed, what everyone saw as the biggest problems to tackle in rare diseases. Two things were very rewarding about those phone calls: one, all the centers were very enthusiastic, and two, they pretty much all agreed on what the key unmet needs are for rare disease patients and the practitioners trying to help them. So, we empaneled working groups of expert volunteers enthusiastic to work on each of those problems. These groups collectively comprise more than 200 volunteers – faculty, staff, and trainees – from the different sites nationwide. Each group is working on a key unmet need in rare diseases, and each group will be given its own space on our file-sharing platform, where they can share information and co-develop new ideas and documents. When something they produce is good enough to start to be a practice resource, such as a draft treatment guideline that the working group now wants to try in the real world, but it’s not yet ready to be published, they can share it and have it tested by all 31 sites through the dedicated intranet we are building for the network.

Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.

In November 2021, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) announced that it had designated 31 institutions across the United States as “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” More than just a stamp of approval, the new NORD network aims to change the way rare diseases are diagnosed and treated, creating more efficient pathways for collaboration among physicians, while helping patients get better care closer to home.

To understand better how the nascent network can benefit patients and clinicians, Neurology Reviews/MDedge Neurology spoke with Ed Neilan, MD, PhD, NORD’s chief scientific and medical officer. Dr. Neilan, a pediatrician and geneticist, is a former president of the medical staff at Boston Children’s Hospital and also served as head of global medical affairs for rare neurology at Sanofi Genzyme.

How did NORD choose its 31 centers?

We were looking for places that had both broad capabilities and deep expertise, where it was reasonable to expect that a patient with almost any condition could go and, without too many missteps or delays, get the right diagnosis or the right treatment. We also sought sites that were educating the next generation of rare disease specialists across departments. The sites had to be involved in research, because that moves the field forward, and sometimes it’s the only way to get a really impactful treatment for the 95% of rare diseases that don’t have an FDA-approved treatment. NORD sent a letter inviting different centers to apply, along with an application that had 120 questions. Most of the questions sought information about what kinds of expertise or services were available on-site, so that patients don’t have to go elsewhere to get, let’s say, a brain MRI scan or to see an immunologist. We wanted each site to be a place where you could go for almost any problem, at any age, and expect that while you’re being seen, and receiving treatment, it can also contribute to the education of the next generation of rare disease specialists and to research.

Several of the members of the network comprise more than one institution: They’re a children’s hospital combined with another facility.

Children’s hospitals, which are highly specialized and able to care for rare things in children, couldn’t apply by themselves. They had to apply in partnership with a center that could provide adult care as patients got older; otherwise, their care model would be incomplete. We’ve had some small victories already just by asking these questions and outlining this sort of approach. At one institution in the Great Plains, the director told us that he had been trying for years to get permission to hire someone who could make appointments across three different hospitals – a children’s hospital and two adult hospitals. He’d wanted to ensure that patients with rare and genetic diseases were seen in the appropriate places, and thanks to the NORD designation, he finally can. Now, regardless of age, the same office staff can handle the arrangements, and the patient will be scheduled in the right place.

You make clear that these are different from disease-specific centers of excellence – you specifically chose the 31 centers for their breadth of expertise. There’s no way to represent all 7,000 rare diseases equally, and disease-specific centers of excellence, which already exist for hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and some other conditions, have a very important role. We’re not aiming to compete with any other existing resources. What we are seeking to do is to fill the unmet need of, “What if there are no such designations for the disease that you’re concerned about?” Our goal was to find places that could help with unanswered questions, whether diagnostic questions or treatment questions. To identify places where a patient could reasonably expect to go and have a deeper dive – maybe an interdisciplinary deep dive.

The delay to diagnosis can be years in rare diseases. How can the network help speed up diagnoses?

With all these experts on different diseases, we hope to develop some better diagnostic algorithms within the network. Another thing we can do is to share resources. With 31 sites, everybody’s seeing patients with unknown diagnoses. Everyone is seeing patients for whom they would maybe like to get a whole genome done, or a whole exome done, but they are often encountering stiff resistance from insurance companies.

Meanwhile some sites, but not all 31, have multimillion-dollar grants to do sequencing and other kinds of advanced diagnostic tests to solve unknown cases. And there are people at those sites who say, “We need more samples. Can you get us samples from the other sites?”

One of the main things we aim to do is share information, including information about available diagnostic resources. We want all 31 sites to know which sites have funding and programs that enable them to study samples for other sites. We also want to know what criteria they’re putting on it. Someone might say: “I’ve got a grant to sequence genomes for people with unexplained seizures. Send me all your unexplained seizures.” Somebody else might have a grant for unexplained GI diseases. So, we want to put on our intranet a resource for the 31 sites, kind of a cookbook for – when if you can’t get it paid for by insurance, but you really think you need a particular special test – who might be able to do it for you within the network.

This would seem to benefit research across sites as well.

Yes, but we also want to share clinical advice and expertise for direct patient benefit. So, it doesn’t always have to fulfill the goals of a specific research project. For example, we might be able to create an undiagnosed patient quality improvement database across all 31 sites that could compliantly let Drs. X and Y know that they’re each seeing a patient with the same rare thing.

But let’s say you want to move the field forward by discovering a new disease. Rare genetic diseases are now being discovered at the rate of about 250 a year, so about 5 per week across the world. With two or three unrelated patients who have the same disease and a whole exome sequence, you can potentially discover a disease. Maybe you’ve found one unique patient with a genetic variant of possible significance, but you can’t be 100% sure, and you may not be able to convince your colleagues, or journal editors, until you find other cases. You need those two or three ultrarare patients. Within this network, a lot of sites want to share information about their ultrarare patients and be able to put together additional instances of the same thing, to prove that it is a real disease, to learn more about it and how to diagnose, manage, and treat it.

Part of the idea with a nationwide network is that patients aren’t going to have to move around among these centers of excellence, is that correct? They’re going to be seen at the closest ones, and it’s the expertise that is mobile.

Yes, that’s right. While we can’t eliminate the need for travel, what we are trying to do is increase the sharing of expertise, to improve results for patients while limiting the need for traveling very long distances. As a geneticist I’ve been on both the requesting and the receiving end of consultations with doctors at other sites, sometimes very far away, especially for ultrarare conditions for which any one physician’s experience is limited. We all try to honor these sorts of requests, but insurance doesn’t reimburse it and so hospitals don’t give doctors much credit for it.

We want to ultimately find ways to incentivize this type of collaboration. Hopefully we can get agreements with insurance companies to allow intersite consultations within our network, recognizing that they don’t want to pay for the patient to be seen out of state, but you also want the patient to get the best possible medical advice. This might require legislative changes in the long run. But what we can do more readily is create a culture within this network of mutual consultation and sharing of clinical experience. Outside of such a network, the idea of “cold calling” somebody, whom you may never have met, and asking them for help and free advice is a little bit of a bar, right? We want to lower that bar.

Can patients get telemedicine consults with physicians across the network?

NORD supports having telemedicine options for everybody regardless of diagnosis, rare or not, and we support legislation that would continue access and reimbursement for telemedicine post pandemic. I hope we can get that, or at least preserve telemedicine for rare diseases, for which there are often not enough, or sometimes not any, expert providers in the same state. Ultimately, we want patients to be able to get the expert assessments and advice they need. For rare diseases, that sometimes means battling back and forth with an insurance provider, seeking permission to see an expert clinician a thousand miles away. By sharing medical expertise, and through telemedicine when that’s allowed, we hope to reduce the need for that. But the telemedicine environment is still evolving and somewhat uncertain.

How will the network’s physician collaborations take place?

One of the important things NORD is providing to the network is an information technology setup and intranet across the 31 sites. That intranet is where center staff will go to access the network’s internal resources, including live and recorded case conferences. In those case conferences you can present a case you haven’t been able to solve. Experts you may have only heard of by reputation will now be streamed to your computer as part of the nationwide network. It benefits the patient because you get additional expert opinions, but it also benefits the physicians because we have this collegial space for discussion and learning. We’ll be linked by frequent meetings – some in person, most virtual – a common culture, and a common intranet.

On the intranet, we will also have a growing set of useful databases, links, and documents that are available to all members. These will be progressively updated with help from experts at the centers, so that clinicians can more directly learn from each other, instead of separately reinventing the wheel. The way things usually work, when you see a patient with an ultrarare condition that you’re not that familiar with, is that you tell them what little you can, then schedule them to come back in a few weeks. In the meantime, usually in your off time, you spend hours searching PubMed and other sources and you try to piece things together, to figure out what’s known that might help your patient. But imagine that this has already been figured out by someone else in the network. You can see on the network a list of articles the other expert read and found helpful in addressing this problem. And you then reach out directly to that other expert.

In recent months you’ve had one-on-one meetings with all 31 directors at the sites, and after that you convened 11 working groups. What are you trying to achieve?

Once the sites were chosen, we aimed to talk quickly and honestly about what everyone needed, what everyone saw as the biggest problems to tackle in rare diseases. Two things were very rewarding about those phone calls: one, all the centers were very enthusiastic, and two, they pretty much all agreed on what the key unmet needs are for rare disease patients and the practitioners trying to help them. So, we empaneled working groups of expert volunteers enthusiastic to work on each of those problems. These groups collectively comprise more than 200 volunteers – faculty, staff, and trainees – from the different sites nationwide. Each group is working on a key unmet need in rare diseases, and each group will be given its own space on our file-sharing platform, where they can share information and co-develop new ideas and documents. When something they produce is good enough to start to be a practice resource, such as a draft treatment guideline that the working group now wants to try in the real world, but it’s not yet ready to be published, they can share it and have it tested by all 31 sites through the dedicated intranet we are building for the network.

Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

More than 3 months after the Dobbs decision by the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and revoked the constitutional right to an abortion, dermatologists who prescribe isotretinoin, a teratogenic drug used to treat severe nodular acne, say they worry even more than in the past about their patients and the risk of accidental pregnancies. Some have beefed up their already stringent instructions and lengthy conversations about avoiding pregnancy while on the medication.

The major fear is that a patient who is taking contraceptive precautions, in accordance with the isotretinoin risk-management program, iPLEDGE, but still becomes pregnant while on isotretinoin may find out about the pregnancy too late to undergo an abortion in her own state and may not be able to travel to another state – or the patient may live in a state where abortions are entirely prohibited and is unable to travel to another state.

Isotretinoin is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane; its former brand name was Accutane.

As of Oct. 7, a total of 14 states have banned most abortions, while 4 others have bans at 6, 15, 18, or 20 weeks. Attempts to restrict abortion on several other states are underway.

“To date, we don’t know of any specific effects of the Dobbs decision on isotretinoin prescribing, but with abortion access banned in many states, we anticipate that this could be a very real issue for individuals who accidentally become pregnant while taking isotretinoin,” said Ilona Frieden, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and chair of the American Academy of Dermatology Association’s iPLEDGE Workgroup.

The iPLEDGE REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) is the Food and Drug Administration–required safety program that is in place to manage the risk of isotretinoin teratogenicity and minimize fetal exposure. The work group meets with the FDA and isotretinoin manufacturers to keep the program safe and operating smoothly. The iPLEDGE workgroup has not yet issued any specific statements on the implications of the Dobbs decision on prescribing isotretinoin.

But work on the issue is ongoing by the American Academy of Dermatology. In a statement issued in September, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said that the academy “is continuing to work with its Patient Guidance for State Regulations Regarding Reproductive Health Task Force to help dermatologists best navigate state laws about how care should be implemented for patients who are or might become pregnant, and have been exposed to teratogenic medications.”

The task force, working with the academy, is “in the process of developing resources to help members better assist patients and have a productive and caring dialogue with them,” according to the statement. No specific timeline was given for when those resources might be available.
 

Methotrexate prescriptions

Also of concern are prescriptions for methotrexate, which is prescribed for psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other skin diseases. Soon after the Dobbs decision was announced on June 24, pharmacies began to require pharmacists in states that banned abortions to verify that a prescription for methotrexate was not intended for an abortion, since methotrexate is used in combination with misoprostol for termination of an early pregnancy.

The action was taken, spokespersons for several major pharmacies said, to comply with state laws. According to Kara Page, a CVS spokesperson: “Pharmacists are caught in the middle on this issue.” Laws in some states, she told this news organization, “restrict the dispensing of medications for the purpose of inducing an abortion. These laws, some of which include criminal penalties, have forced us to require pharmacists in these states to validate that the intended indication is not to terminate a pregnancy before they can fill a prescription for methotrexate.”

“New laws in various states require additional steps for dispensing certain prescriptions and apply to all pharmacies, including Walgreens,” Fraser Engerman, a spokesperson for Walgreens, told this news organization. “In these states, our pharmacists work closely with prescribers as needed, to fill lawful, clinically appropriate prescriptions. We provide ongoing training and information to help our pharmacists understand the latest requirements in their area, and with these supports, the expectation is they are empowered to fill these prescriptions.”

The iPLEDGE program has numerous requirements before a patient can begin isotretinoin treatment. Patients capable of becoming pregnant must agree to use two effective forms of birth control during the entire treatment period, which typically lasts 4 or 5 months, as well as 1 month before and 1 month after treatment, or commit to total abstinence during that time.

Perspective: A Georgia dermatologist

Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, who sees patients regularly, practices in Georgia, where abortion is now banned at about 6 weeks of pregnancy. Dr. Yeung worries that some dermatologists in Georgia and elsewhere may not even want to take the risk of prescribing isotretinoin, although the results in treating resistant acne are well documented.

That isn’t his only concern. “Some may not want to prescribe it to a patient who reports they are abstinent and instead require them to go on two forms [of contraception].” Or some women who are not sexually active with anyone who can get them pregnant may also be asked to go on contraception, he said. Abstinence is an alternative option in iPLEDGE.

In the past, he said, well before the Dobbs decision, some doctors have argued that iPLEDGE should not include abstinence as an option. That 2020 report was challenged by others who pointed out that removing the abstinence option would pose ethical issues and may disproportionately affect minorities and others.

Before the Dobbs decision, Dr. Yeung noted, dermatologists prescribing isotretinoin focused on pregnancy prevention but knew that if pregnancy accidentally occurred, abortion was available as an option. “The reality after the decision is, it may or may not be available to all our patients.”

Of the 14 states banning most abortions, 10 are clustered within the South and Southeast. A woman living in Arkansas, which bans most abortions, for example, is surrounded by 6 other states that do the same.
 

Perspective: An Arizona dermatologist

Christina Kranc, MD, is a general dermatologist in Phoenix and Scottsdale. Arizona now bans most abortions. However, this has not changed her practice much when prescribing isotretinoin, she told this news organization, because when selecting appropriate candidates for the medication, she is strict on the contraceptive requirement, and only very rarely agrees to a patient relying on abstinence.

And if a patient capable of becoming pregnant was only having sex with another patient capable of becoming pregnant? Dr. Kranc said she would still require contraception unless it was impossible for pregnancy to occur.

Among the many scenarios a dermatologist might have to consider are a lesbian cisgender woman who is having, or has only had, sexual activity with another cisgender women.
 

Perspective: A Connecticut dermatologist

The concern is not only about isotretinoin but all teratogenic drugs, according to Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD, vice chair of dermatology and professor of dermatology, pathology, and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut, Farmington. She often prescribes methotrexate, which is also teratogenic.

Her advice for colleagues: “Whether you believe in abortion or not is irrelevant; it’s something you discuss with your patients.” She, too, fears that doctors in states banning abortions will stop prescribing these medications, “and that is very sad.”

For those practicing in states limiting or banning abortions, Dr. Grant-Kels said, “They need to have an even longer discussion with their patients about how serious this is.” Those doctors need to talk about not only two or three types of birth control, but also discuss with the patient about the potential need for travel, should pregnancy occur and abortion be the chosen option.

Although the newer biologics are an option for psoriasis, they are expensive. And, she said, many insurers require a step-therapy approach, and “want you to start with cheaper medications,” such as methotrexate. As a result, “in some states you won’t have access to the targeted therapies unless a patient fails something like methotrexate.”

Dr. Grant-Kels worries in particular about low-income women who may not have the means to travel to get an abortion.
 

Need for EC education

In a recent survey of 57 pediatric dermatologists who prescribe isotretinoin, only a third said they felt confident in their understanding of emergency contraception.

The authors of the study noted that the most common reasons for pregnancies during isotretinoin therapy reported to the FDA from 2011 to 2017 “included ineffective or inconsistent use” of contraceptives and “unsuccessful abstinence,” and recommended that physicians who prescribe isotretinoin update and increase their understanding of emergency contraception.

Dr. Yeung, Dr. Kranc, Dr. Grant-Kels, and Dr. Frieden reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 months after the Dobbs decision by the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and revoked the constitutional right to an abortion, dermatologists who prescribe isotretinoin, a teratogenic drug used to treat severe nodular acne, say they worry even more than in the past about their patients and the risk of accidental pregnancies. Some have beefed up their already stringent instructions and lengthy conversations about avoiding pregnancy while on the medication.

The major fear is that a patient who is taking contraceptive precautions, in accordance with the isotretinoin risk-management program, iPLEDGE, but still becomes pregnant while on isotretinoin may find out about the pregnancy too late to undergo an abortion in her own state and may not be able to travel to another state – or the patient may live in a state where abortions are entirely prohibited and is unable to travel to another state.

Isotretinoin is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane; its former brand name was Accutane.

As of Oct. 7, a total of 14 states have banned most abortions, while 4 others have bans at 6, 15, 18, or 20 weeks. Attempts to restrict abortion on several other states are underway.

“To date, we don’t know of any specific effects of the Dobbs decision on isotretinoin prescribing, but with abortion access banned in many states, we anticipate that this could be a very real issue for individuals who accidentally become pregnant while taking isotretinoin,” said Ilona Frieden, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and chair of the American Academy of Dermatology Association’s iPLEDGE Workgroup.

The iPLEDGE REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) is the Food and Drug Administration–required safety program that is in place to manage the risk of isotretinoin teratogenicity and minimize fetal exposure. The work group meets with the FDA and isotretinoin manufacturers to keep the program safe and operating smoothly. The iPLEDGE workgroup has not yet issued any specific statements on the implications of the Dobbs decision on prescribing isotretinoin.

But work on the issue is ongoing by the American Academy of Dermatology. In a statement issued in September, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said that the academy “is continuing to work with its Patient Guidance for State Regulations Regarding Reproductive Health Task Force to help dermatologists best navigate state laws about how care should be implemented for patients who are or might become pregnant, and have been exposed to teratogenic medications.”

The task force, working with the academy, is “in the process of developing resources to help members better assist patients and have a productive and caring dialogue with them,” according to the statement. No specific timeline was given for when those resources might be available.
 

Methotrexate prescriptions

Also of concern are prescriptions for methotrexate, which is prescribed for psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other skin diseases. Soon after the Dobbs decision was announced on June 24, pharmacies began to require pharmacists in states that banned abortions to verify that a prescription for methotrexate was not intended for an abortion, since methotrexate is used in combination with misoprostol for termination of an early pregnancy.

The action was taken, spokespersons for several major pharmacies said, to comply with state laws. According to Kara Page, a CVS spokesperson: “Pharmacists are caught in the middle on this issue.” Laws in some states, she told this news organization, “restrict the dispensing of medications for the purpose of inducing an abortion. These laws, some of which include criminal penalties, have forced us to require pharmacists in these states to validate that the intended indication is not to terminate a pregnancy before they can fill a prescription for methotrexate.”

“New laws in various states require additional steps for dispensing certain prescriptions and apply to all pharmacies, including Walgreens,” Fraser Engerman, a spokesperson for Walgreens, told this news organization. “In these states, our pharmacists work closely with prescribers as needed, to fill lawful, clinically appropriate prescriptions. We provide ongoing training and information to help our pharmacists understand the latest requirements in their area, and with these supports, the expectation is they are empowered to fill these prescriptions.”

The iPLEDGE program has numerous requirements before a patient can begin isotretinoin treatment. Patients capable of becoming pregnant must agree to use two effective forms of birth control during the entire treatment period, which typically lasts 4 or 5 months, as well as 1 month before and 1 month after treatment, or commit to total abstinence during that time.

Perspective: A Georgia dermatologist

Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, who sees patients regularly, practices in Georgia, where abortion is now banned at about 6 weeks of pregnancy. Dr. Yeung worries that some dermatologists in Georgia and elsewhere may not even want to take the risk of prescribing isotretinoin, although the results in treating resistant acne are well documented.

That isn’t his only concern. “Some may not want to prescribe it to a patient who reports they are abstinent and instead require them to go on two forms [of contraception].” Or some women who are not sexually active with anyone who can get them pregnant may also be asked to go on contraception, he said. Abstinence is an alternative option in iPLEDGE.

In the past, he said, well before the Dobbs decision, some doctors have argued that iPLEDGE should not include abstinence as an option. That 2020 report was challenged by others who pointed out that removing the abstinence option would pose ethical issues and may disproportionately affect minorities and others.

Before the Dobbs decision, Dr. Yeung noted, dermatologists prescribing isotretinoin focused on pregnancy prevention but knew that if pregnancy accidentally occurred, abortion was available as an option. “The reality after the decision is, it may or may not be available to all our patients.”

Of the 14 states banning most abortions, 10 are clustered within the South and Southeast. A woman living in Arkansas, which bans most abortions, for example, is surrounded by 6 other states that do the same.
 

Perspective: An Arizona dermatologist

Christina Kranc, MD, is a general dermatologist in Phoenix and Scottsdale. Arizona now bans most abortions. However, this has not changed her practice much when prescribing isotretinoin, she told this news organization, because when selecting appropriate candidates for the medication, she is strict on the contraceptive requirement, and only very rarely agrees to a patient relying on abstinence.

And if a patient capable of becoming pregnant was only having sex with another patient capable of becoming pregnant? Dr. Kranc said she would still require contraception unless it was impossible for pregnancy to occur.

Among the many scenarios a dermatologist might have to consider are a lesbian cisgender woman who is having, or has only had, sexual activity with another cisgender women.
 

Perspective: A Connecticut dermatologist

The concern is not only about isotretinoin but all teratogenic drugs, according to Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD, vice chair of dermatology and professor of dermatology, pathology, and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut, Farmington. She often prescribes methotrexate, which is also teratogenic.

Her advice for colleagues: “Whether you believe in abortion or not is irrelevant; it’s something you discuss with your patients.” She, too, fears that doctors in states banning abortions will stop prescribing these medications, “and that is very sad.”

For those practicing in states limiting or banning abortions, Dr. Grant-Kels said, “They need to have an even longer discussion with their patients about how serious this is.” Those doctors need to talk about not only two or three types of birth control, but also discuss with the patient about the potential need for travel, should pregnancy occur and abortion be the chosen option.

Although the newer biologics are an option for psoriasis, they are expensive. And, she said, many insurers require a step-therapy approach, and “want you to start with cheaper medications,” such as methotrexate. As a result, “in some states you won’t have access to the targeted therapies unless a patient fails something like methotrexate.”

Dr. Grant-Kels worries in particular about low-income women who may not have the means to travel to get an abortion.
 

Need for EC education

In a recent survey of 57 pediatric dermatologists who prescribe isotretinoin, only a third said they felt confident in their understanding of emergency contraception.

The authors of the study noted that the most common reasons for pregnancies during isotretinoin therapy reported to the FDA from 2011 to 2017 “included ineffective or inconsistent use” of contraceptives and “unsuccessful abstinence,” and recommended that physicians who prescribe isotretinoin update and increase their understanding of emergency contraception.

Dr. Yeung, Dr. Kranc, Dr. Grant-Kels, and Dr. Frieden reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 months after the Dobbs decision by the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and revoked the constitutional right to an abortion, dermatologists who prescribe isotretinoin, a teratogenic drug used to treat severe nodular acne, say they worry even more than in the past about their patients and the risk of accidental pregnancies. Some have beefed up their already stringent instructions and lengthy conversations about avoiding pregnancy while on the medication.

The major fear is that a patient who is taking contraceptive precautions, in accordance with the isotretinoin risk-management program, iPLEDGE, but still becomes pregnant while on isotretinoin may find out about the pregnancy too late to undergo an abortion in her own state and may not be able to travel to another state – or the patient may live in a state where abortions are entirely prohibited and is unable to travel to another state.

Isotretinoin is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane; its former brand name was Accutane.

As of Oct. 7, a total of 14 states have banned most abortions, while 4 others have bans at 6, 15, 18, or 20 weeks. Attempts to restrict abortion on several other states are underway.

“To date, we don’t know of any specific effects of the Dobbs decision on isotretinoin prescribing, but with abortion access banned in many states, we anticipate that this could be a very real issue for individuals who accidentally become pregnant while taking isotretinoin,” said Ilona Frieden, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and chair of the American Academy of Dermatology Association’s iPLEDGE Workgroup.

The iPLEDGE REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) is the Food and Drug Administration–required safety program that is in place to manage the risk of isotretinoin teratogenicity and minimize fetal exposure. The work group meets with the FDA and isotretinoin manufacturers to keep the program safe and operating smoothly. The iPLEDGE workgroup has not yet issued any specific statements on the implications of the Dobbs decision on prescribing isotretinoin.

But work on the issue is ongoing by the American Academy of Dermatology. In a statement issued in September, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said that the academy “is continuing to work with its Patient Guidance for State Regulations Regarding Reproductive Health Task Force to help dermatologists best navigate state laws about how care should be implemented for patients who are or might become pregnant, and have been exposed to teratogenic medications.”

The task force, working with the academy, is “in the process of developing resources to help members better assist patients and have a productive and caring dialogue with them,” according to the statement. No specific timeline was given for when those resources might be available.
 

Methotrexate prescriptions

Also of concern are prescriptions for methotrexate, which is prescribed for psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other skin diseases. Soon after the Dobbs decision was announced on June 24, pharmacies began to require pharmacists in states that banned abortions to verify that a prescription for methotrexate was not intended for an abortion, since methotrexate is used in combination with misoprostol for termination of an early pregnancy.

The action was taken, spokespersons for several major pharmacies said, to comply with state laws. According to Kara Page, a CVS spokesperson: “Pharmacists are caught in the middle on this issue.” Laws in some states, she told this news organization, “restrict the dispensing of medications for the purpose of inducing an abortion. These laws, some of which include criminal penalties, have forced us to require pharmacists in these states to validate that the intended indication is not to terminate a pregnancy before they can fill a prescription for methotrexate.”

“New laws in various states require additional steps for dispensing certain prescriptions and apply to all pharmacies, including Walgreens,” Fraser Engerman, a spokesperson for Walgreens, told this news organization. “In these states, our pharmacists work closely with prescribers as needed, to fill lawful, clinically appropriate prescriptions. We provide ongoing training and information to help our pharmacists understand the latest requirements in their area, and with these supports, the expectation is they are empowered to fill these prescriptions.”

The iPLEDGE program has numerous requirements before a patient can begin isotretinoin treatment. Patients capable of becoming pregnant must agree to use two effective forms of birth control during the entire treatment period, which typically lasts 4 or 5 months, as well as 1 month before and 1 month after treatment, or commit to total abstinence during that time.

Perspective: A Georgia dermatologist

Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, who sees patients regularly, practices in Georgia, where abortion is now banned at about 6 weeks of pregnancy. Dr. Yeung worries that some dermatologists in Georgia and elsewhere may not even want to take the risk of prescribing isotretinoin, although the results in treating resistant acne are well documented.

That isn’t his only concern. “Some may not want to prescribe it to a patient who reports they are abstinent and instead require them to go on two forms [of contraception].” Or some women who are not sexually active with anyone who can get them pregnant may also be asked to go on contraception, he said. Abstinence is an alternative option in iPLEDGE.

In the past, he said, well before the Dobbs decision, some doctors have argued that iPLEDGE should not include abstinence as an option. That 2020 report was challenged by others who pointed out that removing the abstinence option would pose ethical issues and may disproportionately affect minorities and others.

Before the Dobbs decision, Dr. Yeung noted, dermatologists prescribing isotretinoin focused on pregnancy prevention but knew that if pregnancy accidentally occurred, abortion was available as an option. “The reality after the decision is, it may or may not be available to all our patients.”

Of the 14 states banning most abortions, 10 are clustered within the South and Southeast. A woman living in Arkansas, which bans most abortions, for example, is surrounded by 6 other states that do the same.
 

Perspective: An Arizona dermatologist

Christina Kranc, MD, is a general dermatologist in Phoenix and Scottsdale. Arizona now bans most abortions. However, this has not changed her practice much when prescribing isotretinoin, she told this news organization, because when selecting appropriate candidates for the medication, she is strict on the contraceptive requirement, and only very rarely agrees to a patient relying on abstinence.

And if a patient capable of becoming pregnant was only having sex with another patient capable of becoming pregnant? Dr. Kranc said she would still require contraception unless it was impossible for pregnancy to occur.

Among the many scenarios a dermatologist might have to consider are a lesbian cisgender woman who is having, or has only had, sexual activity with another cisgender women.
 

Perspective: A Connecticut dermatologist

The concern is not only about isotretinoin but all teratogenic drugs, according to Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD, vice chair of dermatology and professor of dermatology, pathology, and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut, Farmington. She often prescribes methotrexate, which is also teratogenic.

Her advice for colleagues: “Whether you believe in abortion or not is irrelevant; it’s something you discuss with your patients.” She, too, fears that doctors in states banning abortions will stop prescribing these medications, “and that is very sad.”

For those practicing in states limiting or banning abortions, Dr. Grant-Kels said, “They need to have an even longer discussion with their patients about how serious this is.” Those doctors need to talk about not only two or three types of birth control, but also discuss with the patient about the potential need for travel, should pregnancy occur and abortion be the chosen option.

Although the newer biologics are an option for psoriasis, they are expensive. And, she said, many insurers require a step-therapy approach, and “want you to start with cheaper medications,” such as methotrexate. As a result, “in some states you won’t have access to the targeted therapies unless a patient fails something like methotrexate.”

Dr. Grant-Kels worries in particular about low-income women who may not have the means to travel to get an abortion.
 

Need for EC education

In a recent survey of 57 pediatric dermatologists who prescribe isotretinoin, only a third said they felt confident in their understanding of emergency contraception.

The authors of the study noted that the most common reasons for pregnancies during isotretinoin therapy reported to the FDA from 2011 to 2017 “included ineffective or inconsistent use” of contraceptives and “unsuccessful abstinence,” and recommended that physicians who prescribe isotretinoin update and increase their understanding of emergency contraception.

Dr. Yeung, Dr. Kranc, Dr. Grant-Kels, and Dr. Frieden reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s not a new drug – it’s been available in topical form for hair loss since 1988 and was approved as an antihypertensive in 1979 – but a low-dose oral form of minoxidil is gaining new currency – and a growing public profile – as an adjunctive therapy for hair loss.

The number of scholarly publications examining its use for hair loss has grown dramatically in the last 2 years: There were 2 in 2019, and that jumped to 17 in 2020 and 20 in 2021, with another 16 published so far this year, according to a PubMed search. An August article in The New York Times touting it as a potential cheap magic bullet is likely to drum up even more interest, said dermatologists.

The low-dose formulation is especially exciting for women, as there have been few great oral options for them, clinicians said.

Female hair loss “is devastating,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, adding that topical minoxidil (Rogaine), topical serums, and supplements “really do not provide the considerable growth that women really want to see.” Oral minoxidil is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for hair loss, but “it has been shown in studies to cause the hairs to grow,” and has become a “lifeline” for women, said Dr. Talakoub, a dermatologist who is in private practice in McLean, Va.

“For many years we haven’t had anything new to tell patients medically,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Boston University School of Medicine. “Now, all of the sudden there’s a cheap, widely available efficacious medicine. That’s huge for female-pattern hair loss,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also the director of the Boston Medical Center’s Hair Clinic.

“I’ve been using oral minoxidil for about 4 years with great success,” said dermatologist Eva Simmons-O’Brien, MD, who is in private practice in Towson, Md. She has used it primarily in women, mainly because she sees more women than men for hair loss.

Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said the excitement about low-dose oral minoxidil follows an increasing recognition in the medical and scientific community that hair loss is more than just a cosmetic issue.
 

Mechanism not fully understood

When minoxidil was first brought to market as an antihypertensive, clinicians noted hair growth in “balding patients,” which led to the development of the topical form. Even though it has been used for hair growth for decades, its mechanism of action is not fully understood. It is known that minoxidil is a vasodilator; it may also increase DNA synthesis and enhance cell proliferation, according to a review published in 2019.

“The positive effect of minoxidil on hair growth is mainly due to its metabolite, minoxidil sulfate, and the enzyme responsible for this conversion is sulfotransferase, which is located in hair follicles and varies in production among individuals,” write the authors, all affiliated with Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand.

Writing in the American Academy of Dermatology’s Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries, Warren R. Heymann, MD, observed that “even after decades of use,” how minoxidil improves alopecia is still not completely understood. He noted that a 2020 review found that minoxidil’s vasodilatory effects “are propagated by upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), increasing cutaneous blood flow with resultant increase in oxygen and growth factor delivery to the hair follicle.” The medication prolongs the anagen phase and shortens the telogen phase, added Dr. Heymann, head of dermatology at Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

As an antihypertensive, minoxidil is given at 5-40 mg daily. Those doses have produced serious side effects such as sodium and fluid retention, ischemic heart disease, pericardial effusion, and pulmonary hypertension, according to the Thai researchers.

Those side effects have appeared to be rare with low-dose oral minoxidil. However, in JAAD Case Reports, South African researchers reported a case in which low-dose oral minoxidil may have led to cardiac side effects. A healthy 40-year-old woman, who after 3 weeks of treatment with 5% topical minoxidil, tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, clobetasol propionate ointment, 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily, and 0.25 mg of oral minoxidil daily, was hospitalized with full-body edema. An ultrasound showed fluid collections in the pericardium, pleural space, and abdomen. She also had a pleural effusion. The patient was given 40 mg of intravenous furosemide daily for 4 days, and the edema resolved.

“Having excluded other causes of pericardial effusion and anasarca in the previously healthy, young woman, we concluded that LDOM [low-dose oral minoxidil] was responsible for her clinical presentation,” write the authors.

A review of 17 studies published on-line in 2020 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found low-dose minoxidil to be safe and effective. Androgenetic alopecia was the most commonly studied, with doses of 0.25-1.25 mg proving to be effective and safe. It was also safe and effective for female-pattern hair loss, traction alopecia, chronic telogen effluvium, lichen planopilaris, alopecia areata, and permanent chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

The most common adverse effect was hypertrichosis. Other adverse events included postural hypotension and dizziness, lower-limb edema, and mild blood pressure changes.

In another multicenter, 1,404-patient safety study published in 2021 in JAAD, the authors found that hypertrichosis was the most frequent adverse event, reported by 15% of patients. Systemic adverse events included lightheadedness (1.7% of patients), fluid retention (1.3%), tachycardia (0.9%), headache (0.4%), periorbital edema (0.3%), and insomnia (0.2%). Only 29 patients (1.2%) withdrew because of these side effects.

“It definitely helps, and it’s relatively safe,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington. “But I wouldn’t want to call it a game-changer,” he said, adding that it works best when used in combination with other therapies. He often uses it with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor – finasteride (Propecia) or dutasteride (Avodart) – “rather than as a monotherapy,” said Dr. Friedman.
 

From Australia to around the globe

The first publication on low-dose oral minoxidil for hair loss was in December 2017. The pilot study in female-pattern hair loss was published in the International Journal of Dermatology by Rodney Sinclair, MBBS, MD, a Melbourne, Australia–based dermatologist.

Amy McMichael, MD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she first heard Dr. Sinclair present his findings at an alopecia research meeting in Japan shortly before his initial publication.

“After that, I think all of us said, ‘Huh, this is interesting, and let’s try it, because we’re always looking for something more to help our patients,’” Dr. McMichael said, adding that she’s been prescribing low-dose minoxidil to her patients for 5 years.

She and colleagues at Wake Forest, along with Jerry Cooley, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Charlotte, published a retrospective case series in March, looking at 105 adult patients – 80 women (ages 24-80) and 25 men (ages 19-63) – who were treated for androgenetic alopecia and/or telogen effluvium with oral minoxidil (dose range of 0.625–2.5 mg) once daily for a year, matched to 105 case controls.

Efficacy was based on the clinician’s assessment of clinical response and clinical photographic evaluation using a 3-point scale (worsening, stabilization, and improvement). Half of those treated demonstrated clinical improvement and 43% demonstrated stabilization. There was a significant difference (P < .001) in clinical response between those who received minoxidil and the controls.

Ideal patients?

Given its ease of use and low cost – $4-$12 for a 30-day supply of 2.5 mg tablets, according to GoodRX – low-dose minoxidil is a good fit for many patients, said dermatologists.

The best candidate is “a woman who’s perimenopausal or menopausal who’s got what we would say is moderate to severe loss of hair that’s kind of just starting,” said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien. The medication is not likely to grow hair where there is scarring already, however, she said.

“I tend to use it in people who either don’t want to do the topical minoxidil or have used it and have a lot of potential side effects from it,” like itching and irritation, said Dr. McMichael. She said oral minoxidil can also be helpful as an adjunct in patients with alopecia areata and that it can be used after anti-inflammatory treatments in central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.

Dr. Goldberg said low-dose minoxidil would not be her first choice for female-pattern hair loss but that it’s “a great alternative” for people who can’t tolerate the topical form. Most of the women she has prescribed it to “have been pretty happy,” she added.

“I would be a little cautious in patients on a number of other medications,” Dr. Goldberg said, noting minoxidil’s potential systemic side effects.

Clinicians said they generally consult with a patient’s internist when they are starting them on oral minoxidil. “I always want to touch base with the primary care physician first,” said Dr. Friedman.

“If they’re on oral antihypertensive medications already, then I would ask them to talk to either their primary care physician or their cardiologist to make sure it’s okay to give this low dose,” said Dr. McMichael.

At the low doses, minoxidil rarely has any blood pressure–lowering effects, dermatologists said.

Women are usually started on 1.25 mg, while men can start at a higher, 2.5-mg dose, said clinicians.

Dr. Goldberg and Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that recent additional warnings for finasteride about sexual side effects and the potential for suicide have changed the way they approach its use in young men, and that it has highlighted the potential for oral minoxidil as an alternative.

Oral minoxidil is rarely used as a monotherapy. “It takes a village” to address hair loss, said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien, noting that she likes to evaluate nutrition, vitamin D levels, and whether a patient is anemic or has thyroid disease when determining a course of action.

Dermatologists said they use oral minoxidil in combination with spironolactone, topical minoxidil, finasteride, or dutasteride. If patients are already on antihypertensives or at risk for excessive blood pressure–lowering effects of a combination that includes spironolactone, the dermatologists said again they will consult with a patient’s primary care physician first.

For women, the main limiting factor with oral minoxidil may be unwanted hair growth, usually on the face. Most of the clinicians interviewed for this story said they did not use spironolactone to counteract that hypertrichosis.

Dr. McMichael said she cautions African American women or women of African descent – who tend to have more body hair at baseline – that they should be aware of the potential for excess hair growth associated with low-dose minoxidil. She and other dermatologists interviewed for this story said they urge patients who are bothered by the excess hair to shave or wax or use other nonpharmacologic approaches.

The excess hair growth is less bothersome for men, they said.
 

Not a magic wand

Despite the increased profile and interest, oral minoxidil is not a cure-all, clinicians said.

“It’s important for patients to realize that hair loss can be complicated and there is no one magic wand,” said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien. Clinicians typically “are using several things to help encourage these follicular units to not miniaturize and disappear and create scars,” she said.

Dr. Friedman said he finds that patients have a hard time hearing that to continue to maintain growth, they have to take a medication for the rest of their life. “If you stop, you will have to start again,” he said. 

Oral minoxidil, when used in combination with other therapies, will improve hair growth, said Dr. Goldberg. But it will not take someone back a decade, she said. “I try to temper expectations – promise a little and achieve more,” Dr. Goldberg said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simmons-O’Brien reports that she has received speaking fees from Isdin. Dr. McMichael disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Nutrafol, Revian, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Friedman, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Talakoub reported no disclosures.

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

It’s not a new drug – it’s been available in topical form for hair loss since 1988 and was approved as an antihypertensive in 1979 – but a low-dose oral form of minoxidil is gaining new currency – and a growing public profile – as an adjunctive therapy for hair loss.

The number of scholarly publications examining its use for hair loss has grown dramatically in the last 2 years: There were 2 in 2019, and that jumped to 17 in 2020 and 20 in 2021, with another 16 published so far this year, according to a PubMed search. An August article in The New York Times touting it as a potential cheap magic bullet is likely to drum up even more interest, said dermatologists.

The low-dose formulation is especially exciting for women, as there have been few great oral options for them, clinicians said.

Female hair loss “is devastating,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, adding that topical minoxidil (Rogaine), topical serums, and supplements “really do not provide the considerable growth that women really want to see.” Oral minoxidil is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for hair loss, but “it has been shown in studies to cause the hairs to grow,” and has become a “lifeline” for women, said Dr. Talakoub, a dermatologist who is in private practice in McLean, Va.

“For many years we haven’t had anything new to tell patients medically,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Boston University School of Medicine. “Now, all of the sudden there’s a cheap, widely available efficacious medicine. That’s huge for female-pattern hair loss,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also the director of the Boston Medical Center’s Hair Clinic.

“I’ve been using oral minoxidil for about 4 years with great success,” said dermatologist Eva Simmons-O’Brien, MD, who is in private practice in Towson, Md. She has used it primarily in women, mainly because she sees more women than men for hair loss.

Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said the excitement about low-dose oral minoxidil follows an increasing recognition in the medical and scientific community that hair loss is more than just a cosmetic issue.
 

Mechanism not fully understood

When minoxidil was first brought to market as an antihypertensive, clinicians noted hair growth in “balding patients,” which led to the development of the topical form. Even though it has been used for hair growth for decades, its mechanism of action is not fully understood. It is known that minoxidil is a vasodilator; it may also increase DNA synthesis and enhance cell proliferation, according to a review published in 2019.

“The positive effect of minoxidil on hair growth is mainly due to its metabolite, minoxidil sulfate, and the enzyme responsible for this conversion is sulfotransferase, which is located in hair follicles and varies in production among individuals,” write the authors, all affiliated with Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand.

Writing in the American Academy of Dermatology’s Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries, Warren R. Heymann, MD, observed that “even after decades of use,” how minoxidil improves alopecia is still not completely understood. He noted that a 2020 review found that minoxidil’s vasodilatory effects “are propagated by upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), increasing cutaneous blood flow with resultant increase in oxygen and growth factor delivery to the hair follicle.” The medication prolongs the anagen phase and shortens the telogen phase, added Dr. Heymann, head of dermatology at Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

As an antihypertensive, minoxidil is given at 5-40 mg daily. Those doses have produced serious side effects such as sodium and fluid retention, ischemic heart disease, pericardial effusion, and pulmonary hypertension, according to the Thai researchers.

Those side effects have appeared to be rare with low-dose oral minoxidil. However, in JAAD Case Reports, South African researchers reported a case in which low-dose oral minoxidil may have led to cardiac side effects. A healthy 40-year-old woman, who after 3 weeks of treatment with 5% topical minoxidil, tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, clobetasol propionate ointment, 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily, and 0.25 mg of oral minoxidil daily, was hospitalized with full-body edema. An ultrasound showed fluid collections in the pericardium, pleural space, and abdomen. She also had a pleural effusion. The patient was given 40 mg of intravenous furosemide daily for 4 days, and the edema resolved.

“Having excluded other causes of pericardial effusion and anasarca in the previously healthy, young woman, we concluded that LDOM [low-dose oral minoxidil] was responsible for her clinical presentation,” write the authors.

A review of 17 studies published on-line in 2020 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found low-dose minoxidil to be safe and effective. Androgenetic alopecia was the most commonly studied, with doses of 0.25-1.25 mg proving to be effective and safe. It was also safe and effective for female-pattern hair loss, traction alopecia, chronic telogen effluvium, lichen planopilaris, alopecia areata, and permanent chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

The most common adverse effect was hypertrichosis. Other adverse events included postural hypotension and dizziness, lower-limb edema, and mild blood pressure changes.

In another multicenter, 1,404-patient safety study published in 2021 in JAAD, the authors found that hypertrichosis was the most frequent adverse event, reported by 15% of patients. Systemic adverse events included lightheadedness (1.7% of patients), fluid retention (1.3%), tachycardia (0.9%), headache (0.4%), periorbital edema (0.3%), and insomnia (0.2%). Only 29 patients (1.2%) withdrew because of these side effects.

“It definitely helps, and it’s relatively safe,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington. “But I wouldn’t want to call it a game-changer,” he said, adding that it works best when used in combination with other therapies. He often uses it with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor – finasteride (Propecia) or dutasteride (Avodart) – “rather than as a monotherapy,” said Dr. Friedman.
 

From Australia to around the globe

The first publication on low-dose oral minoxidil for hair loss was in December 2017. The pilot study in female-pattern hair loss was published in the International Journal of Dermatology by Rodney Sinclair, MBBS, MD, a Melbourne, Australia–based dermatologist.

Amy McMichael, MD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she first heard Dr. Sinclair present his findings at an alopecia research meeting in Japan shortly before his initial publication.

“After that, I think all of us said, ‘Huh, this is interesting, and let’s try it, because we’re always looking for something more to help our patients,’” Dr. McMichael said, adding that she’s been prescribing low-dose minoxidil to her patients for 5 years.

She and colleagues at Wake Forest, along with Jerry Cooley, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Charlotte, published a retrospective case series in March, looking at 105 adult patients – 80 women (ages 24-80) and 25 men (ages 19-63) – who were treated for androgenetic alopecia and/or telogen effluvium with oral minoxidil (dose range of 0.625–2.5 mg) once daily for a year, matched to 105 case controls.

Efficacy was based on the clinician’s assessment of clinical response and clinical photographic evaluation using a 3-point scale (worsening, stabilization, and improvement). Half of those treated demonstrated clinical improvement and 43% demonstrated stabilization. There was a significant difference (P < .001) in clinical response between those who received minoxidil and the controls.

Ideal patients?

Given its ease of use and low cost – $4-$12 for a 30-day supply of 2.5 mg tablets, according to GoodRX – low-dose minoxidil is a good fit for many patients, said dermatologists.

The best candidate is “a woman who’s perimenopausal or menopausal who’s got what we would say is moderate to severe loss of hair that’s kind of just starting,” said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien. The medication is not likely to grow hair where there is scarring already, however, she said.

“I tend to use it in people who either don’t want to do the topical minoxidil or have used it and have a lot of potential side effects from it,” like itching and irritation, said Dr. McMichael. She said oral minoxidil can also be helpful as an adjunct in patients with alopecia areata and that it can be used after anti-inflammatory treatments in central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.

Dr. Goldberg said low-dose minoxidil would not be her first choice for female-pattern hair loss but that it’s “a great alternative” for people who can’t tolerate the topical form. Most of the women she has prescribed it to “have been pretty happy,” she added.

“I would be a little cautious in patients on a number of other medications,” Dr. Goldberg said, noting minoxidil’s potential systemic side effects.

Clinicians said they generally consult with a patient’s internist when they are starting them on oral minoxidil. “I always want to touch base with the primary care physician first,” said Dr. Friedman.

“If they’re on oral antihypertensive medications already, then I would ask them to talk to either their primary care physician or their cardiologist to make sure it’s okay to give this low dose,” said Dr. McMichael.

At the low doses, minoxidil rarely has any blood pressure–lowering effects, dermatologists said.

Women are usually started on 1.25 mg, while men can start at a higher, 2.5-mg dose, said clinicians.

Dr. Goldberg and Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that recent additional warnings for finasteride about sexual side effects and the potential for suicide have changed the way they approach its use in young men, and that it has highlighted the potential for oral minoxidil as an alternative.

Oral minoxidil is rarely used as a monotherapy. “It takes a village” to address hair loss, said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien, noting that she likes to evaluate nutrition, vitamin D levels, and whether a patient is anemic or has thyroid disease when determining a course of action.

Dermatologists said they use oral minoxidil in combination with spironolactone, topical minoxidil, finasteride, or dutasteride. If patients are already on antihypertensives or at risk for excessive blood pressure–lowering effects of a combination that includes spironolactone, the dermatologists said again they will consult with a patient’s primary care physician first.

For women, the main limiting factor with oral minoxidil may be unwanted hair growth, usually on the face. Most of the clinicians interviewed for this story said they did not use spironolactone to counteract that hypertrichosis.

Dr. McMichael said she cautions African American women or women of African descent – who tend to have more body hair at baseline – that they should be aware of the potential for excess hair growth associated with low-dose minoxidil. She and other dermatologists interviewed for this story said they urge patients who are bothered by the excess hair to shave or wax or use other nonpharmacologic approaches.

The excess hair growth is less bothersome for men, they said.
 

Not a magic wand

Despite the increased profile and interest, oral minoxidil is not a cure-all, clinicians said.

“It’s important for patients to realize that hair loss can be complicated and there is no one magic wand,” said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien. Clinicians typically “are using several things to help encourage these follicular units to not miniaturize and disappear and create scars,” she said.

Dr. Friedman said he finds that patients have a hard time hearing that to continue to maintain growth, they have to take a medication for the rest of their life. “If you stop, you will have to start again,” he said. 

Oral minoxidil, when used in combination with other therapies, will improve hair growth, said Dr. Goldberg. But it will not take someone back a decade, she said. “I try to temper expectations – promise a little and achieve more,” Dr. Goldberg said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simmons-O’Brien reports that she has received speaking fees from Isdin. Dr. McMichael disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Nutrafol, Revian, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Friedman, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Talakoub reported no disclosures.

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

It’s not a new drug – it’s been available in topical form for hair loss since 1988 and was approved as an antihypertensive in 1979 – but a low-dose oral form of minoxidil is gaining new currency – and a growing public profile – as an adjunctive therapy for hair loss.

The number of scholarly publications examining its use for hair loss has grown dramatically in the last 2 years: There were 2 in 2019, and that jumped to 17 in 2020 and 20 in 2021, with another 16 published so far this year, according to a PubMed search. An August article in The New York Times touting it as a potential cheap magic bullet is likely to drum up even more interest, said dermatologists.

The low-dose formulation is especially exciting for women, as there have been few great oral options for them, clinicians said.

Female hair loss “is devastating,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, adding that topical minoxidil (Rogaine), topical serums, and supplements “really do not provide the considerable growth that women really want to see.” Oral minoxidil is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for hair loss, but “it has been shown in studies to cause the hairs to grow,” and has become a “lifeline” for women, said Dr. Talakoub, a dermatologist who is in private practice in McLean, Va.

“For many years we haven’t had anything new to tell patients medically,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Boston University School of Medicine. “Now, all of the sudden there’s a cheap, widely available efficacious medicine. That’s huge for female-pattern hair loss,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also the director of the Boston Medical Center’s Hair Clinic.

“I’ve been using oral minoxidil for about 4 years with great success,” said dermatologist Eva Simmons-O’Brien, MD, who is in private practice in Towson, Md. She has used it primarily in women, mainly because she sees more women than men for hair loss.

Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said the excitement about low-dose oral minoxidil follows an increasing recognition in the medical and scientific community that hair loss is more than just a cosmetic issue.
 

Mechanism not fully understood

When minoxidil was first brought to market as an antihypertensive, clinicians noted hair growth in “balding patients,” which led to the development of the topical form. Even though it has been used for hair growth for decades, its mechanism of action is not fully understood. It is known that minoxidil is a vasodilator; it may also increase DNA synthesis and enhance cell proliferation, according to a review published in 2019.

“The positive effect of minoxidil on hair growth is mainly due to its metabolite, minoxidil sulfate, and the enzyme responsible for this conversion is sulfotransferase, which is located in hair follicles and varies in production among individuals,” write the authors, all affiliated with Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand.

Writing in the American Academy of Dermatology’s Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries, Warren R. Heymann, MD, observed that “even after decades of use,” how minoxidil improves alopecia is still not completely understood. He noted that a 2020 review found that minoxidil’s vasodilatory effects “are propagated by upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), increasing cutaneous blood flow with resultant increase in oxygen and growth factor delivery to the hair follicle.” The medication prolongs the anagen phase and shortens the telogen phase, added Dr. Heymann, head of dermatology at Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

As an antihypertensive, minoxidil is given at 5-40 mg daily. Those doses have produced serious side effects such as sodium and fluid retention, ischemic heart disease, pericardial effusion, and pulmonary hypertension, according to the Thai researchers.

Those side effects have appeared to be rare with low-dose oral minoxidil. However, in JAAD Case Reports, South African researchers reported a case in which low-dose oral minoxidil may have led to cardiac side effects. A healthy 40-year-old woman, who after 3 weeks of treatment with 5% topical minoxidil, tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, clobetasol propionate ointment, 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily, and 0.25 mg of oral minoxidil daily, was hospitalized with full-body edema. An ultrasound showed fluid collections in the pericardium, pleural space, and abdomen. She also had a pleural effusion. The patient was given 40 mg of intravenous furosemide daily for 4 days, and the edema resolved.

“Having excluded other causes of pericardial effusion and anasarca in the previously healthy, young woman, we concluded that LDOM [low-dose oral minoxidil] was responsible for her clinical presentation,” write the authors.

A review of 17 studies published on-line in 2020 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found low-dose minoxidil to be safe and effective. Androgenetic alopecia was the most commonly studied, with doses of 0.25-1.25 mg proving to be effective and safe. It was also safe and effective for female-pattern hair loss, traction alopecia, chronic telogen effluvium, lichen planopilaris, alopecia areata, and permanent chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

The most common adverse effect was hypertrichosis. Other adverse events included postural hypotension and dizziness, lower-limb edema, and mild blood pressure changes.

In another multicenter, 1,404-patient safety study published in 2021 in JAAD, the authors found that hypertrichosis was the most frequent adverse event, reported by 15% of patients. Systemic adverse events included lightheadedness (1.7% of patients), fluid retention (1.3%), tachycardia (0.9%), headache (0.4%), periorbital edema (0.3%), and insomnia (0.2%). Only 29 patients (1.2%) withdrew because of these side effects.

“It definitely helps, and it’s relatively safe,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington. “But I wouldn’t want to call it a game-changer,” he said, adding that it works best when used in combination with other therapies. He often uses it with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor – finasteride (Propecia) or dutasteride (Avodart) – “rather than as a monotherapy,” said Dr. Friedman.
 

From Australia to around the globe

The first publication on low-dose oral minoxidil for hair loss was in December 2017. The pilot study in female-pattern hair loss was published in the International Journal of Dermatology by Rodney Sinclair, MBBS, MD, a Melbourne, Australia–based dermatologist.

Amy McMichael, MD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she first heard Dr. Sinclair present his findings at an alopecia research meeting in Japan shortly before his initial publication.

“After that, I think all of us said, ‘Huh, this is interesting, and let’s try it, because we’re always looking for something more to help our patients,’” Dr. McMichael said, adding that she’s been prescribing low-dose minoxidil to her patients for 5 years.

She and colleagues at Wake Forest, along with Jerry Cooley, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Charlotte, published a retrospective case series in March, looking at 105 adult patients – 80 women (ages 24-80) and 25 men (ages 19-63) – who were treated for androgenetic alopecia and/or telogen effluvium with oral minoxidil (dose range of 0.625–2.5 mg) once daily for a year, matched to 105 case controls.

Efficacy was based on the clinician’s assessment of clinical response and clinical photographic evaluation using a 3-point scale (worsening, stabilization, and improvement). Half of those treated demonstrated clinical improvement and 43% demonstrated stabilization. There was a significant difference (P < .001) in clinical response between those who received minoxidil and the controls.

Ideal patients?

Given its ease of use and low cost – $4-$12 for a 30-day supply of 2.5 mg tablets, according to GoodRX – low-dose minoxidil is a good fit for many patients, said dermatologists.

The best candidate is “a woman who’s perimenopausal or menopausal who’s got what we would say is moderate to severe loss of hair that’s kind of just starting,” said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien. The medication is not likely to grow hair where there is scarring already, however, she said.

“I tend to use it in people who either don’t want to do the topical minoxidil or have used it and have a lot of potential side effects from it,” like itching and irritation, said Dr. McMichael. She said oral minoxidil can also be helpful as an adjunct in patients with alopecia areata and that it can be used after anti-inflammatory treatments in central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.

Dr. Goldberg said low-dose minoxidil would not be her first choice for female-pattern hair loss but that it’s “a great alternative” for people who can’t tolerate the topical form. Most of the women she has prescribed it to “have been pretty happy,” she added.

“I would be a little cautious in patients on a number of other medications,” Dr. Goldberg said, noting minoxidil’s potential systemic side effects.

Clinicians said they generally consult with a patient’s internist when they are starting them on oral minoxidil. “I always want to touch base with the primary care physician first,” said Dr. Friedman.

“If they’re on oral antihypertensive medications already, then I would ask them to talk to either their primary care physician or their cardiologist to make sure it’s okay to give this low dose,” said Dr. McMichael.

At the low doses, minoxidil rarely has any blood pressure–lowering effects, dermatologists said.

Women are usually started on 1.25 mg, while men can start at a higher, 2.5-mg dose, said clinicians.

Dr. Goldberg and Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that recent additional warnings for finasteride about sexual side effects and the potential for suicide have changed the way they approach its use in young men, and that it has highlighted the potential for oral minoxidil as an alternative.

Oral minoxidil is rarely used as a monotherapy. “It takes a village” to address hair loss, said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien, noting that she likes to evaluate nutrition, vitamin D levels, and whether a patient is anemic or has thyroid disease when determining a course of action.

Dermatologists said they use oral minoxidil in combination with spironolactone, topical minoxidil, finasteride, or dutasteride. If patients are already on antihypertensives or at risk for excessive blood pressure–lowering effects of a combination that includes spironolactone, the dermatologists said again they will consult with a patient’s primary care physician first.

For women, the main limiting factor with oral minoxidil may be unwanted hair growth, usually on the face. Most of the clinicians interviewed for this story said they did not use spironolactone to counteract that hypertrichosis.

Dr. McMichael said she cautions African American women or women of African descent – who tend to have more body hair at baseline – that they should be aware of the potential for excess hair growth associated with low-dose minoxidil. She and other dermatologists interviewed for this story said they urge patients who are bothered by the excess hair to shave or wax or use other nonpharmacologic approaches.

The excess hair growth is less bothersome for men, they said.
 

Not a magic wand

Despite the increased profile and interest, oral minoxidil is not a cure-all, clinicians said.

“It’s important for patients to realize that hair loss can be complicated and there is no one magic wand,” said Dr. Simmons-O’Brien. Clinicians typically “are using several things to help encourage these follicular units to not miniaturize and disappear and create scars,” she said.

Dr. Friedman said he finds that patients have a hard time hearing that to continue to maintain growth, they have to take a medication for the rest of their life. “If you stop, you will have to start again,” he said. 

Oral minoxidil, when used in combination with other therapies, will improve hair growth, said Dr. Goldberg. But it will not take someone back a decade, she said. “I try to temper expectations – promise a little and achieve more,” Dr. Goldberg said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simmons-O’Brien reports that she has received speaking fees from Isdin. Dr. McMichael disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Nutrafol, Revian, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Friedman, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Talakoub reported no disclosures.

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

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated chronic inflammatory disease characterized by well-demarcated, scaly, erythematous plaques. Those who present with the condition often have a family history, which supports recent research uncovering various genes implicated in its pathogenesis. The disease is also associated with other systemic complications, most notably cardiovascular disease.

Palmoplantar psoriasis is a unique manifestation of psoriasis appearing in an acral distribution, but can coexist with plaque psoriasis, which is commonly found on extensor surfaces. This condition is found in a small percentage of patients with psoriasis and presentation varies from hyperkeratotic plaques to pustular lesions. The pustular form is known as palmoplantar pustulosis and is within the spectrum of palmoplantar psoriasis.

Psoriasis is typically a clinical diagnosis and its severity can be measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. If biopsy is performed, the histology demonstrates parakeratosis, orthokeratosis, loss of the stratum granulosum, and dilated vasculature with an inflammatory cell infiltrate. The keratinocytes present with abnormal differentiation and hyperplasia, and the presence of foci of neutrophils known as “Munro’s microabscesses” in the stratum corneum serve as the hallmark of histological diagnosis. However, it is important to note that appearance can vary based on the stage of the lesion and the subtype of psoriasis present.

Palmoplantar psoriasis can be especially limiting and difficult to treat because of its distribution. Topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and narrow band ultraviolet light therapy can be effective for less severe cases. Methotrexate, biologic treatments, and apremilast can be used for more extensive disease.

This patient is HLA-B27 positive and has uveitis. The presence of the HLA-B27 allele has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis, psoriatic arthritis, and reactive arthritis. It has also been reported to be associated with pustular psoriasis. She responded well to topical steroids and vitamin D analogues.

This case and photo were submitted by Mr. Shapiro at Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Fla., and Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Psoriasis: Overview and Diagnosis, in “Evidence-Based Psoriasis. Updates in Clinical Dermatology.” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2018).

2. Merola JF et al. Dermatol Ther. 2018 May;31(3):e12589.

3. Chung J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Oct;71(4):623-32.

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated chronic inflammatory disease characterized by well-demarcated, scaly, erythematous plaques. Those who present with the condition often have a family history, which supports recent research uncovering various genes implicated in its pathogenesis. The disease is also associated with other systemic complications, most notably cardiovascular disease.

Palmoplantar psoriasis is a unique manifestation of psoriasis appearing in an acral distribution, but can coexist with plaque psoriasis, which is commonly found on extensor surfaces. This condition is found in a small percentage of patients with psoriasis and presentation varies from hyperkeratotic plaques to pustular lesions. The pustular form is known as palmoplantar pustulosis and is within the spectrum of palmoplantar psoriasis.

Psoriasis is typically a clinical diagnosis and its severity can be measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. If biopsy is performed, the histology demonstrates parakeratosis, orthokeratosis, loss of the stratum granulosum, and dilated vasculature with an inflammatory cell infiltrate. The keratinocytes present with abnormal differentiation and hyperplasia, and the presence of foci of neutrophils known as “Munro’s microabscesses” in the stratum corneum serve as the hallmark of histological diagnosis. However, it is important to note that appearance can vary based on the stage of the lesion and the subtype of psoriasis present.

Palmoplantar psoriasis can be especially limiting and difficult to treat because of its distribution. Topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and narrow band ultraviolet light therapy can be effective for less severe cases. Methotrexate, biologic treatments, and apremilast can be used for more extensive disease.

This patient is HLA-B27 positive and has uveitis. The presence of the HLA-B27 allele has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis, psoriatic arthritis, and reactive arthritis. It has also been reported to be associated with pustular psoriasis. She responded well to topical steroids and vitamin D analogues.

This case and photo were submitted by Mr. Shapiro at Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Fla., and Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Psoriasis: Overview and Diagnosis, in “Evidence-Based Psoriasis. Updates in Clinical Dermatology.” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2018).

2. Merola JF et al. Dermatol Ther. 2018 May;31(3):e12589.

3. Chung J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Oct;71(4):623-32.

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated chronic inflammatory disease characterized by well-demarcated, scaly, erythematous plaques. Those who present with the condition often have a family history, which supports recent research uncovering various genes implicated in its pathogenesis. The disease is also associated with other systemic complications, most notably cardiovascular disease.

Palmoplantar psoriasis is a unique manifestation of psoriasis appearing in an acral distribution, but can coexist with plaque psoriasis, which is commonly found on extensor surfaces. This condition is found in a small percentage of patients with psoriasis and presentation varies from hyperkeratotic plaques to pustular lesions. The pustular form is known as palmoplantar pustulosis and is within the spectrum of palmoplantar psoriasis.

Psoriasis is typically a clinical diagnosis and its severity can be measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. If biopsy is performed, the histology demonstrates parakeratosis, orthokeratosis, loss of the stratum granulosum, and dilated vasculature with an inflammatory cell infiltrate. The keratinocytes present with abnormal differentiation and hyperplasia, and the presence of foci of neutrophils known as “Munro’s microabscesses” in the stratum corneum serve as the hallmark of histological diagnosis. However, it is important to note that appearance can vary based on the stage of the lesion and the subtype of psoriasis present.

Palmoplantar psoriasis can be especially limiting and difficult to treat because of its distribution. Topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and narrow band ultraviolet light therapy can be effective for less severe cases. Methotrexate, biologic treatments, and apremilast can be used for more extensive disease.

This patient is HLA-B27 positive and has uveitis. The presence of the HLA-B27 allele has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis, psoriatic arthritis, and reactive arthritis. It has also been reported to be associated with pustular psoriasis. She responded well to topical steroids and vitamin D analogues.

This case and photo were submitted by Mr. Shapiro at Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Fla., and Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Psoriasis: Overview and Diagnosis, in “Evidence-Based Psoriasis. Updates in Clinical Dermatology.” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2018).

2. Merola JF et al. Dermatol Ther. 2018 May;31(3):e12589.

3. Chung J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Oct;71(4):623-32.

Denver – Combining 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing (NAFR) and laser hair removal (LHR) on the same day of treatment safely improves both hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis in Becker’s nevi patients out to 40 weeks, results of a small retrospective case series demonstrated.

During an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, presenting author Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, said that NAFR and LHR target the clinically bothersome Becker’s nevi features of hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis via different mechanisms. “NAFR creates microcolumns of thermal injury in the skin, which improves hyperpigmentation,” explained Dr. Kubicki, a 3rd-year dermatology resident at University of Texas Health Sciences Center/University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston.

“LHR targets follicular melanocytes, which are located more deeply in the dermis,” she said. “This improves hypertrichosis and likely prevents recurrence of hyperpigmentation by targeting these melanocytes that are not reached by NAFR.”

Dr. Kubicki and her colleagues retrospectively reviewed 12 patients with Becker’s nevus who underwent a mean of 5.3 NAFR treatments at a single dermatology practice at intervals that ranged between 1 and 4 months. The long-pulsed 755-nm alexandrite laser was used for study participants with skin types I-III, while the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd: YAG laser was used for those with skin types IV-VI. Ten of the 12 patients underwent concomitant LHR with one of the two devices and three independent physicians used a 5-point visual analog scale (VAS) to rate clinical photographs. All patients completed a strict pre- and postoperative regimen with either 4% hydroquinone or topical 3% tranexamic acid and broad-spectrum sunscreen and postoperative treatment with a midpotency topical corticosteroid for 3 days.

The study is the largest known case series of therapy combining 1,550-nm NAFR and LHR for Becker’s nevus patients with skin types III-VI.

After comparing VAS scores at baseline and follow-up, physicians rated the cosmetic appearance of Becker’s nevus as improving by a range of 51%-75%. Two patients did not undergo LHR: one male patient with Becker’s nevus in his beard region, for whom LHR was undesirable, and a second patient with atrichotic Becker’s nevus. These two patients demonstrated improvements in VAS scores of 26%-50% and 76%-99%, respectively.

No long-term adverse events were observed during follow-up, which ranged from 6 to 40 weeks. “We do want more long-term follow-up,” Dr. Kubicki said, noting that there are more data on some patients to extend the follow-up.

She and her coinvestigators concluded that the results show that treatment with a combination of NAFR and LHR safely addresses both hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis in Becker’s nevi. “In addition, LHR likely prevents recurrence of hyperpigmentation by targeting follicular melanocytes,” she said. “In our study, we did have one patient experience recurrence of a Becker’s nevus during follow-up, but [the rest] did not, which we considered a success.”

Denver – Combining 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing (NAFR) and laser hair removal (LHR) on the same day of treatment safely improves both hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis in Becker’s nevi patients out to 40 weeks, results of a small retrospective case series demonstrated.

During an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, presenting author Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, said that NAFR and LHR target the clinically bothersome Becker’s nevi features of hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis via different mechanisms. “NAFR creates microcolumns of thermal injury in the skin, which improves hyperpigmentation,” explained Dr. Kubicki, a 3rd-year dermatology resident at University of Texas Health Sciences Center/University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston.

“LHR targets follicular melanocytes, which are located more deeply in the dermis,” she said. “This improves hypertrichosis and likely prevents recurrence of hyperpigmentation by targeting these melanocytes that are not reached by NAFR.”

Dr. Kubicki and her colleagues retrospectively reviewed 12 patients with Becker’s nevus who underwent a mean of 5.3 NAFR treatments at a single dermatology practice at intervals that ranged between 1 and 4 months. The long-pulsed 755-nm alexandrite laser was used for study participants with skin types I-III, while the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd: YAG laser was used for those with skin types IV-VI. Ten of the 12 patients underwent concomitant LHR with one of the two devices and three independent physicians used a 5-point visual analog scale (VAS) to rate clinical photographs. All patients completed a strict pre- and postoperative regimen with either 4% hydroquinone or topical 3% tranexamic acid and broad-spectrum sunscreen and postoperative treatment with a midpotency topical corticosteroid for 3 days.

The study is the largest known case series of therapy combining 1,550-nm NAFR and LHR for Becker’s nevus patients with skin types III-VI.

After comparing VAS scores at baseline and follow-up, physicians rated the cosmetic appearance of Becker’s nevus as improving by a range of 51%-75%. Two patients did not undergo LHR: one male patient with Becker’s nevus in his beard region, for whom LHR was undesirable, and a second patient with atrichotic Becker’s nevus. These two patients demonstrated improvements in VAS scores of 26%-50% and 76%-99%, respectively.

No long-term adverse events were observed during follow-up, which ranged from 6 to 40 weeks. “We do want more long-term follow-up,” Dr. Kubicki said, noting that there are more data on some patients to extend the follow-up.

She and her coinvestigators concluded that the results show that treatment with a combination of NAFR and LHR safely addresses both hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis in Becker’s nevi. “In addition, LHR likely prevents recurrence of hyperpigmentation by targeting follicular melanocytes,” she said. “In our study, we did have one patient experience recurrence of a Becker’s nevus during follow-up, but [the rest] did not, which we considered a success.”

Denver – Combining 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing (NAFR) and laser hair removal (LHR) on the same day of treatment safely improves both hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis in Becker’s nevi patients out to 40 weeks, results of a small retrospective case series demonstrated.

During an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, presenting author Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, said that NAFR and LHR target the clinically bothersome Becker’s nevi features of hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis via different mechanisms. “NAFR creates microcolumns of thermal injury in the skin, which improves hyperpigmentation,” explained Dr. Kubicki, a 3rd-year dermatology resident at University of Texas Health Sciences Center/University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston.

“LHR targets follicular melanocytes, which are located more deeply in the dermis,” she said. “This improves hypertrichosis and likely prevents recurrence of hyperpigmentation by targeting these melanocytes that are not reached by NAFR.”

Dr. Kubicki and her colleagues retrospectively reviewed 12 patients with Becker’s nevus who underwent a mean of 5.3 NAFR treatments at a single dermatology practice at intervals that ranged between 1 and 4 months. The long-pulsed 755-nm alexandrite laser was used for study participants with skin types I-III, while the long-pulsed 1,064-nm Nd: YAG laser was used for those with skin types IV-VI. Ten of the 12 patients underwent concomitant LHR with one of the two devices and three independent physicians used a 5-point visual analog scale (VAS) to rate clinical photographs. All patients completed a strict pre- and postoperative regimen with either 4% hydroquinone or topical 3% tranexamic acid and broad-spectrum sunscreen and postoperative treatment with a midpotency topical corticosteroid for 3 days.

The study is the largest known case series of therapy combining 1,550-nm NAFR and LHR for Becker’s nevus patients with skin types III-VI.

After comparing VAS scores at baseline and follow-up, physicians rated the cosmetic appearance of Becker’s nevus as improving by a range of 51%-75%. Two patients did not undergo LHR: one male patient with Becker’s nevus in his beard region, for whom LHR was undesirable, and a second patient with atrichotic Becker’s nevus. These two patients demonstrated improvements in VAS scores of 26%-50% and 76%-99%, respectively.

No long-term adverse events were observed during follow-up, which ranged from 6 to 40 weeks. “We do want more long-term follow-up,” Dr. Kubicki said, noting that there are more data on some patients to extend the follow-up.

She and her coinvestigators concluded that the results show that treatment with a combination of NAFR and LHR safely addresses both hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis in Becker’s nevi. “In addition, LHR likely prevents recurrence of hyperpigmentation by targeting follicular melanocytes,” she said. “In our study, we did have one patient experience recurrence of a Becker’s nevus during follow-up, but [the rest] did not, which we considered a success.”

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I run the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Many of you know that President Biden created a loan forgiveness program, forgiving up to $10,000 against federal student loans, including graduate and undergraduate education. The Department of Education is supposed to provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients who have loans that are held by the Department of Education. Borrowers can get this relief if their income is less than $125,000 for an individual or $250,000 for married couples.

Many people have looked at this and said, “Hey, wait a minute. I paid off my loans. I didn’t get any reimbursement. That isn’t fair.”

One group saddled with massive debt are people who are still carrying their medical school loans, who often still have huge amounts of debt, and either because of the income limits or because they don’t qualify because this debt was accrued long in the past, they’re saying, “What about me? Don’t you want to give any relief to me?”

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because I happen to be at a medical school, NYU, that has decided for the two medical schools it runs – our main campus, NYU in Manhattan and NYU Langone out on Long Island – that we’re going to go tuition free. We’ve done it for a couple of years.

We did it because I think all the administrators and faculty understood the tremendous burden that debt poses on people who both carry forward their undergraduate debt and then have medical school debt. This really leads to very difficult situations – which we have great empathy for – about what specialty you’re going to go into, whether you have to moonlight, and how you’re going to manage a huge burden of debt.

Many people don’t have sympathy out in the public. They say doctors make a large amount of money and they live a nice lifestyle, so we’re not going to relieve their debt. The reality is that, whoever you are, short of Bill Gates or Elon Musk, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt is no easy task to live with and to work off.

Still, when we created free tuition at NYU for our medical school, there were many people who paid high tuition fees in the past. Some of them said to us, “What about me?” We decided not to try to do anything retrospectively. The plan was to build up enough money so that we could handle no-cost tuition going forward. We didn’t really have it in our pocketbook to help people who’d already paid their debts or were saddled with NYU debt. Is it fair? No, it’s probably not fair, but it’s an improvement.

That’s what I want people to think about who are saying, “What about my medical school debt? What about my undergraduate plus medical school debt?” I think we should be grateful when efforts are being made to reduce very burdensome student loans that people have. It’s good to give that benefit and move it forward.

Does that mean no one should get anything unless everyone with any kind of debt from school is covered? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair either.

It is possible that we could continue to agitate politically and say, let’s go after some of the health care debt. Let’s go after some of the things that are still driving people to have to work more than they would or to choose specialties that they really don’t want to be in because they have to make up that debt.

It doesn’t mean the last word has been said about the politics of debt relief or, for that matter, the price of going to medical school in the first place and trying to see whether that can be driven down.

I don’t think it’s right to say, “If I can’t benefit, given the huge burden that I’m carrying, then I’m not going to try to give relief to others.” I think we’re relieving debt to the extent that we can do it. The nation can afford it. Going forward is a good thing. It’s wrong to create those gigantic debts in the first place.

What are we going to do about the past? We may decide that we need some sort of forgiveness or reparations for loans that were built up for others going backwards. I wouldn’t hold hostage the future and our children to what was probably a very poor, unethical practice about saddling doctors and others in the past with huge debt.

I’m Art Caplan at the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I run the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Many of you know that President Biden created a loan forgiveness program, forgiving up to $10,000 against federal student loans, including graduate and undergraduate education. The Department of Education is supposed to provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients who have loans that are held by the Department of Education. Borrowers can get this relief if their income is less than $125,000 for an individual or $250,000 for married couples.

Many people have looked at this and said, “Hey, wait a minute. I paid off my loans. I didn’t get any reimbursement. That isn’t fair.”

One group saddled with massive debt are people who are still carrying their medical school loans, who often still have huge amounts of debt, and either because of the income limits or because they don’t qualify because this debt was accrued long in the past, they’re saying, “What about me? Don’t you want to give any relief to me?”

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because I happen to be at a medical school, NYU, that has decided for the two medical schools it runs – our main campus, NYU in Manhattan and NYU Langone out on Long Island – that we’re going to go tuition free. We’ve done it for a couple of years.

We did it because I think all the administrators and faculty understood the tremendous burden that debt poses on people who both carry forward their undergraduate debt and then have medical school debt. This really leads to very difficult situations – which we have great empathy for – about what specialty you’re going to go into, whether you have to moonlight, and how you’re going to manage a huge burden of debt.

Many people don’t have sympathy out in the public. They say doctors make a large amount of money and they live a nice lifestyle, so we’re not going to relieve their debt. The reality is that, whoever you are, short of Bill Gates or Elon Musk, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt is no easy task to live with and to work off.

Still, when we created free tuition at NYU for our medical school, there were many people who paid high tuition fees in the past. Some of them said to us, “What about me?” We decided not to try to do anything retrospectively. The plan was to build up enough money so that we could handle no-cost tuition going forward. We didn’t really have it in our pocketbook to help people who’d already paid their debts or were saddled with NYU debt. Is it fair? No, it’s probably not fair, but it’s an improvement.

That’s what I want people to think about who are saying, “What about my medical school debt? What about my undergraduate plus medical school debt?” I think we should be grateful when efforts are being made to reduce very burdensome student loans that people have. It’s good to give that benefit and move it forward.

Does that mean no one should get anything unless everyone with any kind of debt from school is covered? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair either.

It is possible that we could continue to agitate politically and say, let’s go after some of the health care debt. Let’s go after some of the things that are still driving people to have to work more than they would or to choose specialties that they really don’t want to be in because they have to make up that debt.

It doesn’t mean the last word has been said about the politics of debt relief or, for that matter, the price of going to medical school in the first place and trying to see whether that can be driven down.

I don’t think it’s right to say, “If I can’t benefit, given the huge burden that I’m carrying, then I’m not going to try to give relief to others.” I think we’re relieving debt to the extent that we can do it. The nation can afford it. Going forward is a good thing. It’s wrong to create those gigantic debts in the first place.

What are we going to do about the past? We may decide that we need some sort of forgiveness or reparations for loans that were built up for others going backwards. I wouldn’t hold hostage the future and our children to what was probably a very poor, unethical practice about saddling doctors and others in the past with huge debt.

I’m Art Caplan at the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I run the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Many of you know that President Biden created a loan forgiveness program, forgiving up to $10,000 against federal student loans, including graduate and undergraduate education. The Department of Education is supposed to provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients who have loans that are held by the Department of Education. Borrowers can get this relief if their income is less than $125,000 for an individual or $250,000 for married couples.

Many people have looked at this and said, “Hey, wait a minute. I paid off my loans. I didn’t get any reimbursement. That isn’t fair.”

One group saddled with massive debt are people who are still carrying their medical school loans, who often still have huge amounts of debt, and either because of the income limits or because they don’t qualify because this debt was accrued long in the past, they’re saying, “What about me? Don’t you want to give any relief to me?”

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because I happen to be at a medical school, NYU, that has decided for the two medical schools it runs – our main campus, NYU in Manhattan and NYU Langone out on Long Island – that we’re going to go tuition free. We’ve done it for a couple of years.

We did it because I think all the administrators and faculty understood the tremendous burden that debt poses on people who both carry forward their undergraduate debt and then have medical school debt. This really leads to very difficult situations – which we have great empathy for – about what specialty you’re going to go into, whether you have to moonlight, and how you’re going to manage a huge burden of debt.

Many people don’t have sympathy out in the public. They say doctors make a large amount of money and they live a nice lifestyle, so we’re not going to relieve their debt. The reality is that, whoever you are, short of Bill Gates or Elon Musk, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt is no easy task to live with and to work off.

Still, when we created free tuition at NYU for our medical school, there were many people who paid high tuition fees in the past. Some of them said to us, “What about me?” We decided not to try to do anything retrospectively. The plan was to build up enough money so that we could handle no-cost tuition going forward. We didn’t really have it in our pocketbook to help people who’d already paid their debts or were saddled with NYU debt. Is it fair? No, it’s probably not fair, but it’s an improvement.

That’s what I want people to think about who are saying, “What about my medical school debt? What about my undergraduate plus medical school debt?” I think we should be grateful when efforts are being made to reduce very burdensome student loans that people have. It’s good to give that benefit and move it forward.

Does that mean no one should get anything unless everyone with any kind of debt from school is covered? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair either.

It is possible that we could continue to agitate politically and say, let’s go after some of the health care debt. Let’s go after some of the things that are still driving people to have to work more than they would or to choose specialties that they really don’t want to be in because they have to make up that debt.

It doesn’t mean the last word has been said about the politics of debt relief or, for that matter, the price of going to medical school in the first place and trying to see whether that can be driven down.

I don’t think it’s right to say, “If I can’t benefit, given the huge burden that I’m carrying, then I’m not going to try to give relief to others.” I think we’re relieving debt to the extent that we can do it. The nation can afford it. Going forward is a good thing. It’s wrong to create those gigantic debts in the first place.

What are we going to do about the past? We may decide that we need some sort of forgiveness or reparations for loans that were built up for others going backwards. I wouldn’t hold hostage the future and our children to what was probably a very poor, unethical practice about saddling doctors and others in the past with huge debt.

I’m Art Caplan at the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.

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

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.