Dermatology News

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

With healthcare costs rising and payer reimbursements dwindling, many physicians are focusing even more on collecting outstanding patient balances.

Medical credit cards can be a popular choice to fill this gap because doctors get reimbursed upfront while patients receive special financing offers and the care they seek or need.

But, in recent months, federal officials have questioned whether these arrangements are genuinely win-win or if the cards prey on low-income and vulnerable individuals and warrant tighter regulatory oversight.

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Treasury announced an inquiry into medical credit cards. The agencies sought public comments from patients and providers to determine how much they are used.

Medical credit cards typically offer 0% or low-interest terms ranging from 6 to 24 months. Minimum monthly payments are required, often as low as $30 and not usually enough to pay the balance by the end of the promotional period.

After the introductory rate, card issuers may charge interest rates approaching 30% — not just on the remaining balance but on the original amount financed, adding considerably to total out-of-pocket costs.

Ophthalmologist Michael A. Brusco, MD, FACS, specializes in laser-assisted in situ keratomileuses and vision correction at his practice in the greater Washington, DC, area. He told this news organization that nearly all his patients are self-paying, and just under half utilize one of two medical credit cards he offers through third-party vendors, CareCredit and Alphaeon Credit.

“We are clear with our patients that it is interest-free only if they make all payments on time, and if they don’t, then the penalties and fees skyrocket,” Dr. Brusco said.

Patients pay no interest if they make the minimum monthly payments and pay the entire balance by the end of the term. Brusco said those who qualify and abide by those conditions can benefit from spreading healthcare expenses over several months and reducing the stress and financial strain associated with a larger, one-time payment.

He acknowledged that deferred interest can be problematic if patients are caught unaware but said his staff has received training from both vendors on clearly explaining the plans to patients. If someone doesn’t think they can pay off the balance in the timeframe, he suggests they pursue an alternative payment method.

Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, has joined 60 other groups urging the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards.

They say that patients don’t understand what they are signing up for due to comments like these:

“Even though I’ve made monthly automatic payments on my account, as long as I have any balance on my account by [the end of the promotion], I’d be charged a 26.99% interest rate on the whole medical bill of [$2700].”

“I had nearly [$700] of interest that had accumulated within 4 months…based on one [$2000] charge. The employees at medical offices are selling a product they know little about without fully disclosing the terms and conditions to their patients.”

Historically, patients who apply for the cards have tended to use them to finance cosmetic or other lifestyle medicine procedures, but the CFPB said patients increasingly rely on them for routine and emergency care, which may contribute to growing medical debts and collections balances.

Federal authorities have expressed concerns that doctors may direct patients toward these financial arrangements instead of properly screening them for assistance programs or pursuing the sometimes arduous claims process to capture reimbursement from payers.
 

Growth of Medical Credit Card Market

One of the most widely used cards, CareCredit, is owned by Synchrony Bank and accepted at over 260,000 locations. Beyond private practices, the vendor has multiyear deals with over 300 hospitals, including Kaiser Permanente and the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite growing popularity and acceptance within the medical community, the cards may work well for some, but not all, patients.

According to a CFPB report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to stick to the terms paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period. Three quarters of CareCredit consumers pay no interest, the organization reported.

Healthcare costs are likely driving demand for medical credit cards. In a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, almost half of respondents said it was very or somewhat difficult to afford care even when having insurance coverage through an employer, individual, or government plan. Consumers in the survey cited the high costs as a reason why they delayed or skipped care and prescription medication in the past year, including 29% of those with employer coverage and 42% with Medicare.

These dynamics can leave doctors between a rock and a hard place, said Alan P. Sager, PhD, a professor of health law, policy, and management at Boston University School of Public Health. He told this news organization that medical credit cards can keep cash flowing for doctors and provide elective and necessary care for patients, but the double-digit interest rates outside of the promotional periods can put patients at risk of bankruptcy. He views them as a short-term solution to a more significant problem.

“What doctors need and deserve is patients who have full coverage so that there are no medical debts and no need for medical credit cards,” said Dr. Sager.
 

Doctor Groups Weigh In

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), representing more than 15,000 medical groups, said in its public comments that Medicare cuts and staffing and inflation challenges have made running a profitable practice challenging, particularly for rural and less-resourced offices.

The organization said medical credit cards with transparent terms and conditions can help patients afford care and keep practice doors open amid rising operational costs. However, MGMA worries that the CFPB’s inquiry could “perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for payment not to be rendered immediately after clinical services are provided, and it’s ok that payments are often subject to significant delays.”

Meanwhile, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has endorsed CareCredit for over 20 years. In response to the CFPB’s request for information, the association said it supports medical credit cards that offer promotional low- or no-interest terms.

Steven Williams, MD, ASPS president, told this news organization that patients appreciate multiple payment options and the flexibility to move forward with care on short notice. Still, he said that it requires due diligence on everyone’s part.

“Lenders have a responsibility to educate their customers, and it’s critical that lending products have full disclosure in plain and clear language. And with any substantial purchase, patients need to analyze how much it adds to the bottom line,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With healthcare costs rising and payer reimbursements dwindling, many physicians are focusing even more on collecting outstanding patient balances.

Medical credit cards can be a popular choice to fill this gap because doctors get reimbursed upfront while patients receive special financing offers and the care they seek or need.

But, in recent months, federal officials have questioned whether these arrangements are genuinely win-win or if the cards prey on low-income and vulnerable individuals and warrant tighter regulatory oversight.

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Treasury announced an inquiry into medical credit cards. The agencies sought public comments from patients and providers to determine how much they are used.

Medical credit cards typically offer 0% or low-interest terms ranging from 6 to 24 months. Minimum monthly payments are required, often as low as $30 and not usually enough to pay the balance by the end of the promotional period.

After the introductory rate, card issuers may charge interest rates approaching 30% — not just on the remaining balance but on the original amount financed, adding considerably to total out-of-pocket costs.

Ophthalmologist Michael A. Brusco, MD, FACS, specializes in laser-assisted in situ keratomileuses and vision correction at his practice in the greater Washington, DC, area. He told this news organization that nearly all his patients are self-paying, and just under half utilize one of two medical credit cards he offers through third-party vendors, CareCredit and Alphaeon Credit.

“We are clear with our patients that it is interest-free only if they make all payments on time, and if they don’t, then the penalties and fees skyrocket,” Dr. Brusco said.

Patients pay no interest if they make the minimum monthly payments and pay the entire balance by the end of the term. Brusco said those who qualify and abide by those conditions can benefit from spreading healthcare expenses over several months and reducing the stress and financial strain associated with a larger, one-time payment.

He acknowledged that deferred interest can be problematic if patients are caught unaware but said his staff has received training from both vendors on clearly explaining the plans to patients. If someone doesn’t think they can pay off the balance in the timeframe, he suggests they pursue an alternative payment method.

Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, has joined 60 other groups urging the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards.

They say that patients don’t understand what they are signing up for due to comments like these:

“Even though I’ve made monthly automatic payments on my account, as long as I have any balance on my account by [the end of the promotion], I’d be charged a 26.99% interest rate on the whole medical bill of [$2700].”

“I had nearly [$700] of interest that had accumulated within 4 months…based on one [$2000] charge. The employees at medical offices are selling a product they know little about without fully disclosing the terms and conditions to their patients.”

Historically, patients who apply for the cards have tended to use them to finance cosmetic or other lifestyle medicine procedures, but the CFPB said patients increasingly rely on them for routine and emergency care, which may contribute to growing medical debts and collections balances.

Federal authorities have expressed concerns that doctors may direct patients toward these financial arrangements instead of properly screening them for assistance programs or pursuing the sometimes arduous claims process to capture reimbursement from payers.
 

Growth of Medical Credit Card Market

One of the most widely used cards, CareCredit, is owned by Synchrony Bank and accepted at over 260,000 locations. Beyond private practices, the vendor has multiyear deals with over 300 hospitals, including Kaiser Permanente and the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite growing popularity and acceptance within the medical community, the cards may work well for some, but not all, patients.

According to a CFPB report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to stick to the terms paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period. Three quarters of CareCredit consumers pay no interest, the organization reported.

Healthcare costs are likely driving demand for medical credit cards. In a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, almost half of respondents said it was very or somewhat difficult to afford care even when having insurance coverage through an employer, individual, or government plan. Consumers in the survey cited the high costs as a reason why they delayed or skipped care and prescription medication in the past year, including 29% of those with employer coverage and 42% with Medicare.

These dynamics can leave doctors between a rock and a hard place, said Alan P. Sager, PhD, a professor of health law, policy, and management at Boston University School of Public Health. He told this news organization that medical credit cards can keep cash flowing for doctors and provide elective and necessary care for patients, but the double-digit interest rates outside of the promotional periods can put patients at risk of bankruptcy. He views them as a short-term solution to a more significant problem.

“What doctors need and deserve is patients who have full coverage so that there are no medical debts and no need for medical credit cards,” said Dr. Sager.
 

Doctor Groups Weigh In

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), representing more than 15,000 medical groups, said in its public comments that Medicare cuts and staffing and inflation challenges have made running a profitable practice challenging, particularly for rural and less-resourced offices.

The organization said medical credit cards with transparent terms and conditions can help patients afford care and keep practice doors open amid rising operational costs. However, MGMA worries that the CFPB’s inquiry could “perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for payment not to be rendered immediately after clinical services are provided, and it’s ok that payments are often subject to significant delays.”

Meanwhile, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has endorsed CareCredit for over 20 years. In response to the CFPB’s request for information, the association said it supports medical credit cards that offer promotional low- or no-interest terms.

Steven Williams, MD, ASPS president, told this news organization that patients appreciate multiple payment options and the flexibility to move forward with care on short notice. Still, he said that it requires due diligence on everyone’s part.

“Lenders have a responsibility to educate their customers, and it’s critical that lending products have full disclosure in plain and clear language. And with any substantial purchase, patients need to analyze how much it adds to the bottom line,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With healthcare costs rising and payer reimbursements dwindling, many physicians are focusing even more on collecting outstanding patient balances.

Medical credit cards can be a popular choice to fill this gap because doctors get reimbursed upfront while patients receive special financing offers and the care they seek or need.

But, in recent months, federal officials have questioned whether these arrangements are genuinely win-win or if the cards prey on low-income and vulnerable individuals and warrant tighter regulatory oversight.

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Treasury announced an inquiry into medical credit cards. The agencies sought public comments from patients and providers to determine how much they are used.

Medical credit cards typically offer 0% or low-interest terms ranging from 6 to 24 months. Minimum monthly payments are required, often as low as $30 and not usually enough to pay the balance by the end of the promotional period.

After the introductory rate, card issuers may charge interest rates approaching 30% — not just on the remaining balance but on the original amount financed, adding considerably to total out-of-pocket costs.

Ophthalmologist Michael A. Brusco, MD, FACS, specializes in laser-assisted in situ keratomileuses and vision correction at his practice in the greater Washington, DC, area. He told this news organization that nearly all his patients are self-paying, and just under half utilize one of two medical credit cards he offers through third-party vendors, CareCredit and Alphaeon Credit.

“We are clear with our patients that it is interest-free only if they make all payments on time, and if they don’t, then the penalties and fees skyrocket,” Dr. Brusco said.

Patients pay no interest if they make the minimum monthly payments and pay the entire balance by the end of the term. Brusco said those who qualify and abide by those conditions can benefit from spreading healthcare expenses over several months and reducing the stress and financial strain associated with a larger, one-time payment.

He acknowledged that deferred interest can be problematic if patients are caught unaware but said his staff has received training from both vendors on clearly explaining the plans to patients. If someone doesn’t think they can pay off the balance in the timeframe, he suggests they pursue an alternative payment method.

Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, has joined 60 other groups urging the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards.

They say that patients don’t understand what they are signing up for due to comments like these:

“Even though I’ve made monthly automatic payments on my account, as long as I have any balance on my account by [the end of the promotion], I’d be charged a 26.99% interest rate on the whole medical bill of [$2700].”

“I had nearly [$700] of interest that had accumulated within 4 months…based on one [$2000] charge. The employees at medical offices are selling a product they know little about without fully disclosing the terms and conditions to their patients.”

Historically, patients who apply for the cards have tended to use them to finance cosmetic or other lifestyle medicine procedures, but the CFPB said patients increasingly rely on them for routine and emergency care, which may contribute to growing medical debts and collections balances.

Federal authorities have expressed concerns that doctors may direct patients toward these financial arrangements instead of properly screening them for assistance programs or pursuing the sometimes arduous claims process to capture reimbursement from payers.
 

Growth of Medical Credit Card Market

One of the most widely used cards, CareCredit, is owned by Synchrony Bank and accepted at over 260,000 locations. Beyond private practices, the vendor has multiyear deals with over 300 hospitals, including Kaiser Permanente and the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite growing popularity and acceptance within the medical community, the cards may work well for some, but not all, patients.

According to a CFPB report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to stick to the terms paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period. Three quarters of CareCredit consumers pay no interest, the organization reported.

Healthcare costs are likely driving demand for medical credit cards. In a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, almost half of respondents said it was very or somewhat difficult to afford care even when having insurance coverage through an employer, individual, or government plan. Consumers in the survey cited the high costs as a reason why they delayed or skipped care and prescription medication in the past year, including 29% of those with employer coverage and 42% with Medicare.

These dynamics can leave doctors between a rock and a hard place, said Alan P. Sager, PhD, a professor of health law, policy, and management at Boston University School of Public Health. He told this news organization that medical credit cards can keep cash flowing for doctors and provide elective and necessary care for patients, but the double-digit interest rates outside of the promotional periods can put patients at risk of bankruptcy. He views them as a short-term solution to a more significant problem.

“What doctors need and deserve is patients who have full coverage so that there are no medical debts and no need for medical credit cards,” said Dr. Sager.
 

Doctor Groups Weigh In

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), representing more than 15,000 medical groups, said in its public comments that Medicare cuts and staffing and inflation challenges have made running a profitable practice challenging, particularly for rural and less-resourced offices.

The organization said medical credit cards with transparent terms and conditions can help patients afford care and keep practice doors open amid rising operational costs. However, MGMA worries that the CFPB’s inquiry could “perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for payment not to be rendered immediately after clinical services are provided, and it’s ok that payments are often subject to significant delays.”

Meanwhile, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has endorsed CareCredit for over 20 years. In response to the CFPB’s request for information, the association said it supports medical credit cards that offer promotional low- or no-interest terms.

Steven Williams, MD, ASPS president, told this news organization that patients appreciate multiple payment options and the flexibility to move forward with care on short notice. Still, he said that it requires due diligence on everyone’s part.

“Lenders have a responsibility to educate their customers, and it’s critical that lending products have full disclosure in plain and clear language. And with any substantial purchase, patients need to analyze how much it adds to the bottom line,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.