Dermatology News

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

Skin reactions at insulin pump infusion sites are common among people with type 1 diabetes who use the devices and can lead to delivery failure, new research suggests.
 

Insulin pump use is increasingly common, but many patients experience infusion-site failure that in some cases leads to discontinuation. In a novel investigation, researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, used biopsies and noninvasive imaging to compare insulin pump sites with control sites in 30 patients. Several differences were found at pump sites in comparison with control sites, including fibrosis, inflammation, eosinophils, and increased vessel density.

“These findings support allergic sensitization as a potentially common reaction at [insulin pump] sites. The leading candidates causing this include insulin preservatives, plastic materials, and adhesive glue used in device manufacturing,” wrote Andrea Kalus, MD, of the university’s dermatology division, and colleagues. The findings were published recently in Diabetes Care.

The inflammatory response, they wrote, “may result in tissue changes responsible for the infusion-site failures seen frequently in clinical practice.”

Such infusion site problems represent an “Achilles heel” of these otherwise highly beneficial devices, lead author Irl Hirsch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition, said in a statement. “It doesn’t really matter how good the technology is. We still don’t understand what is happening with the infusion sites, much less to [be able to] fix it.”
 

Significant differences between pump and nonpump sites

In the cross-sectional study, Dr. Kalus and colleagues used noninvasive optical coherence tomography (OCT) immediately prior to performing punch biopsies at three sites: the site currently in active use, the “recovery site” used 3-5 days prior to the procedures, and control sites never used for pump infusion. Punch biopsies were also performed at those sites.

The mean age of the patients was 48.3 years, the mean diabetes duration was 30.4 years, and the mean duration of pump use was 15.8 years. Nearly all patients (93.3%) reported itchiness at the site, and 76.7% reported skin redness.

Of the 25 patients for whom OCT imaging was successful, statistical analysis showed significant differences in vascular area density and the optical attenuation coefficient, a surrogate for skin inflammation, between the pump and control sites and between recovery sites and current pump sites. The greater vessel density is likely a result of injury and repair related to catheter insertion, the authors said.

In the biopsy samples, both current and recovery sites showed increased fibrosis, fibrin, inflammation, fat necrosis, vascularity, and eosinophils, compared with the control sites, but no significant differences were found between current and recovery sites.

Eosinophils: ‘The most surprising histologic finding’

Eosinophils were found in 73% of skin biopsy specimens from current sites and in 75% of specimens from recovery sites, compared with none from the control sites (for both, P < .01). In all study participants, eosinophils were found in at least one current and/or recovery infusion site deep in the dermis near the interface with fat. The number of eosinophils ranged from 0 to 31 per high-power field, with a median of 4.

The number of eosinophils didn’t vary by type of insulin or brand of pump, but higher counts were seen in those who had used pumps for less than 10 years, compared with more than 20 years (P = .02).

The prevalence and degree of eosinophils were “the most surprising histologic finding,” the authors wrote, adding that “eosinophils are not typically present as a component of resident inflammatory cells in the skin.”

While eosinophils may be present in normal wound healing, “the absolute number and density of eosinophil in these samples support a delayed-type hypersensitivity response, which is typically observed between 2 and 7 days after exposure to an allergen. ... Eosinophils are often correlated with symptoms of itchiness and likely explain the high percentage of participants who reported itchiness in this study,” Dr. Kalus and colleagues wrote.
 

Correlation found between inflammation and glycemic control

All participants used the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor as part of their usual care. Inflammation scores were positively correlated with insulin dose (P = .009) and were negatively correlated with time in range (P = .01).

No other OCT or biopsy findings differed by duration of pump use, previous use of animal insulin, or type of insulin.

The reason for these findings is unclear, Dr. Hirsch said. “How much was the catheter or the insulin causing the irritation around the sites? How much was it from the preservatives, or is this because of the insulin pump itself? All these questions need to be answered in future studies. ... The real goal of all of this is to minimize skin damage and improve the experience for our patients.”

The study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Hirsch reported grants and contracts from Insulet, Medtronic, and Dexcom outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Lifescan, and Hagar outside the submitted work; and honoraria for lectures, presentations, participation on speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events as section editor for UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Kalus has no disclosures.

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

Skin reactions at insulin pump infusion sites are common among people with type 1 diabetes who use the devices and can lead to delivery failure, new research suggests.
 

Insulin pump use is increasingly common, but many patients experience infusion-site failure that in some cases leads to discontinuation. In a novel investigation, researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, used biopsies and noninvasive imaging to compare insulin pump sites with control sites in 30 patients. Several differences were found at pump sites in comparison with control sites, including fibrosis, inflammation, eosinophils, and increased vessel density.

“These findings support allergic sensitization as a potentially common reaction at [insulin pump] sites. The leading candidates causing this include insulin preservatives, plastic materials, and adhesive glue used in device manufacturing,” wrote Andrea Kalus, MD, of the university’s dermatology division, and colleagues. The findings were published recently in Diabetes Care.

The inflammatory response, they wrote, “may result in tissue changes responsible for the infusion-site failures seen frequently in clinical practice.”

Such infusion site problems represent an “Achilles heel” of these otherwise highly beneficial devices, lead author Irl Hirsch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition, said in a statement. “It doesn’t really matter how good the technology is. We still don’t understand what is happening with the infusion sites, much less to [be able to] fix it.”
 

Significant differences between pump and nonpump sites

In the cross-sectional study, Dr. Kalus and colleagues used noninvasive optical coherence tomography (OCT) immediately prior to performing punch biopsies at three sites: the site currently in active use, the “recovery site” used 3-5 days prior to the procedures, and control sites never used for pump infusion. Punch biopsies were also performed at those sites.

The mean age of the patients was 48.3 years, the mean diabetes duration was 30.4 years, and the mean duration of pump use was 15.8 years. Nearly all patients (93.3%) reported itchiness at the site, and 76.7% reported skin redness.

Of the 25 patients for whom OCT imaging was successful, statistical analysis showed significant differences in vascular area density and the optical attenuation coefficient, a surrogate for skin inflammation, between the pump and control sites and between recovery sites and current pump sites. The greater vessel density is likely a result of injury and repair related to catheter insertion, the authors said.

In the biopsy samples, both current and recovery sites showed increased fibrosis, fibrin, inflammation, fat necrosis, vascularity, and eosinophils, compared with the control sites, but no significant differences were found between current and recovery sites.

Eosinophils: ‘The most surprising histologic finding’

Eosinophils were found in 73% of skin biopsy specimens from current sites and in 75% of specimens from recovery sites, compared with none from the control sites (for both, P < .01). In all study participants, eosinophils were found in at least one current and/or recovery infusion site deep in the dermis near the interface with fat. The number of eosinophils ranged from 0 to 31 per high-power field, with a median of 4.

The number of eosinophils didn’t vary by type of insulin or brand of pump, but higher counts were seen in those who had used pumps for less than 10 years, compared with more than 20 years (P = .02).

The prevalence and degree of eosinophils were “the most surprising histologic finding,” the authors wrote, adding that “eosinophils are not typically present as a component of resident inflammatory cells in the skin.”

While eosinophils may be present in normal wound healing, “the absolute number and density of eosinophil in these samples support a delayed-type hypersensitivity response, which is typically observed between 2 and 7 days after exposure to an allergen. ... Eosinophils are often correlated with symptoms of itchiness and likely explain the high percentage of participants who reported itchiness in this study,” Dr. Kalus and colleagues wrote.
 

Correlation found between inflammation and glycemic control

All participants used the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor as part of their usual care. Inflammation scores were positively correlated with insulin dose (P = .009) and were negatively correlated with time in range (P = .01).

No other OCT or biopsy findings differed by duration of pump use, previous use of animal insulin, or type of insulin.

The reason for these findings is unclear, Dr. Hirsch said. “How much was the catheter or the insulin causing the irritation around the sites? How much was it from the preservatives, or is this because of the insulin pump itself? All these questions need to be answered in future studies. ... The real goal of all of this is to minimize skin damage and improve the experience for our patients.”

The study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Hirsch reported grants and contracts from Insulet, Medtronic, and Dexcom outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Lifescan, and Hagar outside the submitted work; and honoraria for lectures, presentations, participation on speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events as section editor for UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Kalus has no disclosures.

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

Skin reactions at insulin pump infusion sites are common among people with type 1 diabetes who use the devices and can lead to delivery failure, new research suggests.
 

Insulin pump use is increasingly common, but many patients experience infusion-site failure that in some cases leads to discontinuation. In a novel investigation, researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, used biopsies and noninvasive imaging to compare insulin pump sites with control sites in 30 patients. Several differences were found at pump sites in comparison with control sites, including fibrosis, inflammation, eosinophils, and increased vessel density.

“These findings support allergic sensitization as a potentially common reaction at [insulin pump] sites. The leading candidates causing this include insulin preservatives, plastic materials, and adhesive glue used in device manufacturing,” wrote Andrea Kalus, MD, of the university’s dermatology division, and colleagues. The findings were published recently in Diabetes Care.

The inflammatory response, they wrote, “may result in tissue changes responsible for the infusion-site failures seen frequently in clinical practice.”

Such infusion site problems represent an “Achilles heel” of these otherwise highly beneficial devices, lead author Irl Hirsch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition, said in a statement. “It doesn’t really matter how good the technology is. We still don’t understand what is happening with the infusion sites, much less to [be able to] fix it.”
 

Significant differences between pump and nonpump sites

In the cross-sectional study, Dr. Kalus and colleagues used noninvasive optical coherence tomography (OCT) immediately prior to performing punch biopsies at three sites: the site currently in active use, the “recovery site” used 3-5 days prior to the procedures, and control sites never used for pump infusion. Punch biopsies were also performed at those sites.

The mean age of the patients was 48.3 years, the mean diabetes duration was 30.4 years, and the mean duration of pump use was 15.8 years. Nearly all patients (93.3%) reported itchiness at the site, and 76.7% reported skin redness.

Of the 25 patients for whom OCT imaging was successful, statistical analysis showed significant differences in vascular area density and the optical attenuation coefficient, a surrogate for skin inflammation, between the pump and control sites and between recovery sites and current pump sites. The greater vessel density is likely a result of injury and repair related to catheter insertion, the authors said.

In the biopsy samples, both current and recovery sites showed increased fibrosis, fibrin, inflammation, fat necrosis, vascularity, and eosinophils, compared with the control sites, but no significant differences were found between current and recovery sites.

Eosinophils: ‘The most surprising histologic finding’

Eosinophils were found in 73% of skin biopsy specimens from current sites and in 75% of specimens from recovery sites, compared with none from the control sites (for both, P < .01). In all study participants, eosinophils were found in at least one current and/or recovery infusion site deep in the dermis near the interface with fat. The number of eosinophils ranged from 0 to 31 per high-power field, with a median of 4.

The number of eosinophils didn’t vary by type of insulin or brand of pump, but higher counts were seen in those who had used pumps for less than 10 years, compared with more than 20 years (P = .02).

The prevalence and degree of eosinophils were “the most surprising histologic finding,” the authors wrote, adding that “eosinophils are not typically present as a component of resident inflammatory cells in the skin.”

While eosinophils may be present in normal wound healing, “the absolute number and density of eosinophil in these samples support a delayed-type hypersensitivity response, which is typically observed between 2 and 7 days after exposure to an allergen. ... Eosinophils are often correlated with symptoms of itchiness and likely explain the high percentage of participants who reported itchiness in this study,” Dr. Kalus and colleagues wrote.
 

Correlation found between inflammation and glycemic control

All participants used the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor as part of their usual care. Inflammation scores were positively correlated with insulin dose (P = .009) and were negatively correlated with time in range (P = .01).

No other OCT or biopsy findings differed by duration of pump use, previous use of animal insulin, or type of insulin.

The reason for these findings is unclear, Dr. Hirsch said. “How much was the catheter or the insulin causing the irritation around the sites? How much was it from the preservatives, or is this because of the insulin pump itself? All these questions need to be answered in future studies. ... The real goal of all of this is to minimize skin damage and improve the experience for our patients.”

The study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Hirsch reported grants and contracts from Insulet, Medtronic, and Dexcom outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Lifescan, and Hagar outside the submitted work; and honoraria for lectures, presentations, participation on speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events as section editor for UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Kalus has no disclosures.

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

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

An influential Nature paper predicted in 2017 that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could unleash remarkable changes in dermatology, such as using phones to help detect skin cancer earlier.

Given that about 6.3 billion smartphones would soon be in use, this AI approach could provide a gateway for “low-cost universal access to vital diagnostic care,” wrote Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, a dermatologist, and colleagues from Stanford (Calif.) University that included other dermatologists and engineers.

Dr. Ko and his coauthors described how they trained a computer system to identify both benign and cancerous skin lesions. They used an approach known as a convolutional neural network, often deployed for projects seeking to train computers to “see” through image analysis. They said that their test of this system found it to be on par with the performance of 21 board-certified dermatologists.

“This fast, scalable method is deployable on mobile devices and holds the potential for substantial clinical impact, including broadening the scope of primary care practice and augmenting clinical decision-making for dermatology specialists,” they wrote in their paper.

More than 6 years later, there are signs that companies are making progress toward moving skin checks using this technology into U.S. primary care settings – but only with devices that employ special tools.

It may prove tougher for companies to eventually secure the sign-off of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for mobile apps intended to let consumers handle this task with smartphones.

Such tools would need to be proven highly accurate before release, because too many false positives mean that people would be needlessly exposed to biopsies, said Sancy A. Leachman, MD, PhD, director of the melanoma research program and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

And false-negative readings would allow melanoma to advance and even be fatal, Dr. Leachman told this news organization.

Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford who has studied the promise and the pitfalls of AI in medicine, said that developers of a consumer skin-check app would need to know how people would react to their readings. That includes a good sense of how often they would appropriately seek medical care for a concerning reading. (She was not an author of the previously cited Nature paper but has published widely on AI.)

Christopher Smith

“The direct-to-consumer diagnostic space makes me nervous,” Dr. Daneshjou said in an interview. “In order to do it, you really need to have good studies in consumer populations prior to release. You need to show how effective it is with follow up.”
 

FDA shows interest – and reservations

As of July, the FDA had not yet given its okay for marketing of any consumer apps intended to help people detect signs of skin cancer, an agency spokesperson told this news organization.

To date, the agency has only cleared two AI-based products for this task, both meant to be used by dermatologists. And only one of these two products, Scibase’s Nevisense, remains in use in the United States. The other, MelaFind, has been discontinued. In 2017, Strata Skin Sciences said that the product did not win “a significant enough level of acceptance by dermatologists to justify the continued investment” in it. And the company said it notified the 90 owners of MelaFind devices in the United States that it would no longer support the device.

But another company, DermaSensor, said in a 2021 press release that it expects its AI-powered tool, also named DermaSensor, to be the “first ever FDA cleared or approved skin cancer detection device for primary care providers.”

The Miami-based firm said that the FDA had granted its product a “breakthrough” device designation. A breakthrough designation means that agency staff will offer extra help and guidance to companies in developing a product, because of its expected benefit for patients.

In a 2020 press release, 3Derm Systems, now owned by Digital Diagnostics, made a similar announcement about winning FDA breakthrough designation for an AI-powered tool intended to allow skin checks in primary care settings.

(The FDA generally does not comment on its reviews of experimental drugs and devices, but companies can do so. Several other companies have announced FDA breakthrough designations for AI-driven products intended to check for skin lesions, but these might be used in settings other than primary care.)

Both DermaSensor and Digital Diagnostics have chairs with notable track records for winning FDA approvals of other devices. DermaSensor’s Maurice Ferre, MD, also is the chairman of Insightec, which in 2016 won the first FDA approval for a device with a breakthrough designation device that uses ultrasound to treat tremors.

In 2018, the FDA allowed Digital Diagnostics, then called IDx, to introduce in the United States the first medical device using AI in primary care offices to check for signs of diabetic retinopathy. This product also had an FDA breakthrough designation. The executive chairman and founder of Digital Diagnostics is Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD, professor of engineering and ophthalmology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. Dr. Abramoff and the team behind the AI tool for retinopathy, now called the LumineticsCore system, also scored a notable win with Medicare, which agreed to cover use of the product through a dedicated CPT code.
 

FDA draft guidance

The FDA has acknowledged the interest in broadening access to skin checks via AI.

This was a topic of discussion at a 2-day advisory committee meeting the FDA held last year. In April 2023, the FDA outlined some of its expectations for future regulation of skin-analyzing tools as part of a wide-ranging draft guidance document intended to aid companies in their efforts to develop products using a form of AI known as machine learning.

In the document, the FDA described how it might approach applications for “hypothetical” devices using this kind of AI, such as a special tool to help primary care clinicians identify lesions in need of further investigation. Such a product would use a specific camera for gathering data for its initial clearance, in the FDA’s hypothetical scenario.

The FDA staff offered technical suggestions about what the developer of this hypothetical device would have to do to extend its use to smartphones and tablets while keeping clinicians as the intended users.

Some of these expanded uses could fall within the bounds of the FDA’s initial clearance and thus not trigger a need for a new marketing submission, the agency said. But seeking to shift this hypothetical product to “patient-facing” use would require a new marketing submission to the FDA, the agency said.

In this scenario, a company would expect people to follow up with a dermatologist after receiving a report suggesting cancer. Thus, this kind of a change could expose patients to “many new, unconsidered risks,” the FDA said.
 

Reality check?

The state of current efforts to develop consumer apps for checking for skin cancer seems to be summarized well on the website for the MoleMapper. The app was developed by researchers at OHSU to help people track how their moles change over time.

“Mole Mapper is NOT designed to provide medical advice, professional diagnosis, opinion, or treatment. Currently, there is not enough data to develop an app that can diagnose melanoma, but if enough data is collected through Mole Mapper and shared with researchers, it may be possible in the future,” the app’s website says.

OHSU released MoleMapper as an iPhone app in 2015. The aim of this project was to help people track the moles on their skin while also fostering an experiment in “citizen science,” OHSU’s Dr. Leachman told this news organization.

OHSU researchers hoped that the digital images taken by members of the public on cell phones could one day be used to develop diagnostic algorithms for melanoma.

But around 2017, the MoleMapper team realized that they would not be able to create a diagnostic app at this time, Dr. Leachman explained. They could not collect enough data of adequate quality.

And by 2021, it was clear that they could not even develop a successful app to triage patients to assess who needs to be seen quickly. The amount of data required was, at this point, beyond what the team could collect, Dr. Leachman said in an interview.

That was a disappointment because the team had successfully completed the difficult task of creating a confidential pathway for collecting these images via both iPhones and smartphones run on Android.

“We thought if we built it, people would come, but that’s not what happened,” Dr. Leachman said. Many patients didn’t want their images used for research or would fail to follow up with details of biopsy reports. Sometimes images were not captured well enough to be of use.

“You need at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of data points that have been verified with pathologies, and nobody was giving us back that data. That was the reality,” Dr. Leachman said.

There were valuable lessons in that setback. The OHSU team now has a better grasp of the challenges of trying to build a data-collection system that could prove helpful in assessing skin lesions.

“If you don’t build it, you don’t know” what can go wrong, she said.

Dr. Leachman said other scientists who have worked on similar projects to build skin-analyzing apps have probably encountered the same difficulties, although they may not reveal these issues. “I think that a lot of people build these things and then they try to make it into something that it’s not,” she said.

In addition to the challenges with gathering images, dermatologists frequently need to rely on touch and other clues from in-person visits when diagnosing a suspicious lesion. “There’s something about seeing and feeling the skin in person that can’t be captured completely with an image,” Dr. Leachman said.
 

Public demand

Still, regulators must face the strong and immediate interest consumers have in using AI to check on moles and skin conditions, despite continuing questions about how well this approach might work.

In June, Google announced in a blog post that its Google Lens tool can help people research skin conditions.

“Just take a picture or upload a photo through Lens, and you’ll find visual matches to inform your search,” Google said in a blog post. “This feature also works if you’re not sure how to describe something else on your body, like a bump on your lip, a line on your nails or hair loss on your head. This feature is currently available in the U.S.”

Google also continues work on DermAssist, an app that’s intended to help people get personalized information about skin concerns using three photos. It is not currently publicly available, a Google spokesperson told this news organization.

Several skin-analyzing apps are already available in the Apple and Google Play stores. The British Association of Dermatologists last year issued a press release warning consumers that these apps may not be safe or effective and thus may put patients at risk for misdiagnosis.

“Unfortunately, AI-based apps which do not appear to meet regulatory requirements crop up more often than we would like,” the association said. “Additionally, the evidence to support the use of AI to diagnose skin conditions is weak which means that when it is used, it may not be safe or effective and it is possible that AI is putting patients at risk of misdiagnosis.”

Delicate and difficult balancing act

At this time, regulators, entrepreneurs, and the medical community face a delicate balancing act in considering how best to deploy AI in skin care, Dr. Ko said in an interview. (In addition to being one of the authors on the widely cited 2017 Nature paper mentioned above, Dr. Ko served until March as the initial chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Augmented Intelligence Committee.)

There are many solid reasons why there hasn’t been speedy progress to deploy AI in dermatology, as many envisioned a few years ago, Dr. Ko said.

Some of those reasons are specific to dermatology; this field doesn’t have a ready set of robust data from which to build AI-driven tools. In this aspect, dermatology is decades behind specialties like radiology, pathology, and ophthalmology, where clinicians have long been accumulating and storing images and other data in more standardized ways, Dr. Ko said.

“If you went to most dermatology practices and said, ‘Hey, let me learn from the data accumulated over the course of your 30-year practice to help us develop new tools,’” there may not be a whole lot there,” Dr. Ko said.

Beyond the start-up hurdles is the larger concern Dr. Ko shares with other dermatologists who work in this field, such as Dr. Daneshjou and Dr. Leachman. What would clinicians without much dermatology training and patients do with the readings from AI-driven tools and apps?

There would need to be significant research to show that such products actually help get people treated for skin diseases, including skin cancer.

Dr. Ko praised Google for being open about the stumbles with its efforts to use its AI tool for identifying diabetic retinopathy in a test in Thailand. Real-world hitches included poor Internet connections and poor image quality.

Developing reliable systems, processes, and workflows will be paramount for eventual widespread use of AI-driven tools, Dr. Ko said.

“It’s all those hidden things that are not sexy,” as are announcements about algorithms working about as well as clinicians in diagnosis, Dr. Ko said. “They don’t get the media attention, but they’re going to be make or break for AI, not just in our field but [for] AI in general.”

But he added that there also needs to be a recognition that AI-driven tools and products, even if somewhat imperfect, can help people get access to care.

In many cases, shortages of specialists prevent people from getting screened for treatable conditions such as skin cancer and retinopathy. The challenge is setting an appropriate standard to make sure that AI-driven products would help most patients in practice, without raising it so high that no such products emerge.

“There’s a risk of holding too high of a bar,” Dr. Ko said. “There is harm in not moving forward as well.”

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

An influential Nature paper predicted in 2017 that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could unleash remarkable changes in dermatology, such as using phones to help detect skin cancer earlier.

Given that about 6.3 billion smartphones would soon be in use, this AI approach could provide a gateway for “low-cost universal access to vital diagnostic care,” wrote Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, a dermatologist, and colleagues from Stanford (Calif.) University that included other dermatologists and engineers.

Dr. Ko and his coauthors described how they trained a computer system to identify both benign and cancerous skin lesions. They used an approach known as a convolutional neural network, often deployed for projects seeking to train computers to “see” through image analysis. They said that their test of this system found it to be on par with the performance of 21 board-certified dermatologists.

“This fast, scalable method is deployable on mobile devices and holds the potential for substantial clinical impact, including broadening the scope of primary care practice and augmenting clinical decision-making for dermatology specialists,” they wrote in their paper.

More than 6 years later, there are signs that companies are making progress toward moving skin checks using this technology into U.S. primary care settings – but only with devices that employ special tools.

It may prove tougher for companies to eventually secure the sign-off of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for mobile apps intended to let consumers handle this task with smartphones.

Such tools would need to be proven highly accurate before release, because too many false positives mean that people would be needlessly exposed to biopsies, said Sancy A. Leachman, MD, PhD, director of the melanoma research program and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

And false-negative readings would allow melanoma to advance and even be fatal, Dr. Leachman told this news organization.

Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford who has studied the promise and the pitfalls of AI in medicine, said that developers of a consumer skin-check app would need to know how people would react to their readings. That includes a good sense of how often they would appropriately seek medical care for a concerning reading. (She was not an author of the previously cited Nature paper but has published widely on AI.)

Christopher Smith

“The direct-to-consumer diagnostic space makes me nervous,” Dr. Daneshjou said in an interview. “In order to do it, you really need to have good studies in consumer populations prior to release. You need to show how effective it is with follow up.”
 

FDA shows interest – and reservations

As of July, the FDA had not yet given its okay for marketing of any consumer apps intended to help people detect signs of skin cancer, an agency spokesperson told this news organization.

To date, the agency has only cleared two AI-based products for this task, both meant to be used by dermatologists. And only one of these two products, Scibase’s Nevisense, remains in use in the United States. The other, MelaFind, has been discontinued. In 2017, Strata Skin Sciences said that the product did not win “a significant enough level of acceptance by dermatologists to justify the continued investment” in it. And the company said it notified the 90 owners of MelaFind devices in the United States that it would no longer support the device.

But another company, DermaSensor, said in a 2021 press release that it expects its AI-powered tool, also named DermaSensor, to be the “first ever FDA cleared or approved skin cancer detection device for primary care providers.”

The Miami-based firm said that the FDA had granted its product a “breakthrough” device designation. A breakthrough designation means that agency staff will offer extra help and guidance to companies in developing a product, because of its expected benefit for patients.

In a 2020 press release, 3Derm Systems, now owned by Digital Diagnostics, made a similar announcement about winning FDA breakthrough designation for an AI-powered tool intended to allow skin checks in primary care settings.

(The FDA generally does not comment on its reviews of experimental drugs and devices, but companies can do so. Several other companies have announced FDA breakthrough designations for AI-driven products intended to check for skin lesions, but these might be used in settings other than primary care.)

Both DermaSensor and Digital Diagnostics have chairs with notable track records for winning FDA approvals of other devices. DermaSensor’s Maurice Ferre, MD, also is the chairman of Insightec, which in 2016 won the first FDA approval for a device with a breakthrough designation device that uses ultrasound to treat tremors.

In 2018, the FDA allowed Digital Diagnostics, then called IDx, to introduce in the United States the first medical device using AI in primary care offices to check for signs of diabetic retinopathy. This product also had an FDA breakthrough designation. The executive chairman and founder of Digital Diagnostics is Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD, professor of engineering and ophthalmology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. Dr. Abramoff and the team behind the AI tool for retinopathy, now called the LumineticsCore system, also scored a notable win with Medicare, which agreed to cover use of the product through a dedicated CPT code.
 

FDA draft guidance

The FDA has acknowledged the interest in broadening access to skin checks via AI.

This was a topic of discussion at a 2-day advisory committee meeting the FDA held last year. In April 2023, the FDA outlined some of its expectations for future regulation of skin-analyzing tools as part of a wide-ranging draft guidance document intended to aid companies in their efforts to develop products using a form of AI known as machine learning.

In the document, the FDA described how it might approach applications for “hypothetical” devices using this kind of AI, such as a special tool to help primary care clinicians identify lesions in need of further investigation. Such a product would use a specific camera for gathering data for its initial clearance, in the FDA’s hypothetical scenario.

The FDA staff offered technical suggestions about what the developer of this hypothetical device would have to do to extend its use to smartphones and tablets while keeping clinicians as the intended users.

Some of these expanded uses could fall within the bounds of the FDA’s initial clearance and thus not trigger a need for a new marketing submission, the agency said. But seeking to shift this hypothetical product to “patient-facing” use would require a new marketing submission to the FDA, the agency said.

In this scenario, a company would expect people to follow up with a dermatologist after receiving a report suggesting cancer. Thus, this kind of a change could expose patients to “many new, unconsidered risks,” the FDA said.
 

Reality check?

The state of current efforts to develop consumer apps for checking for skin cancer seems to be summarized well on the website for the MoleMapper. The app was developed by researchers at OHSU to help people track how their moles change over time.

“Mole Mapper is NOT designed to provide medical advice, professional diagnosis, opinion, or treatment. Currently, there is not enough data to develop an app that can diagnose melanoma, but if enough data is collected through Mole Mapper and shared with researchers, it may be possible in the future,” the app’s website says.

OHSU released MoleMapper as an iPhone app in 2015. The aim of this project was to help people track the moles on their skin while also fostering an experiment in “citizen science,” OHSU’s Dr. Leachman told this news organization.

OHSU researchers hoped that the digital images taken by members of the public on cell phones could one day be used to develop diagnostic algorithms for melanoma.

But around 2017, the MoleMapper team realized that they would not be able to create a diagnostic app at this time, Dr. Leachman explained. They could not collect enough data of adequate quality.

And by 2021, it was clear that they could not even develop a successful app to triage patients to assess who needs to be seen quickly. The amount of data required was, at this point, beyond what the team could collect, Dr. Leachman said in an interview.

That was a disappointment because the team had successfully completed the difficult task of creating a confidential pathway for collecting these images via both iPhones and smartphones run on Android.

“We thought if we built it, people would come, but that’s not what happened,” Dr. Leachman said. Many patients didn’t want their images used for research or would fail to follow up with details of biopsy reports. Sometimes images were not captured well enough to be of use.

“You need at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of data points that have been verified with pathologies, and nobody was giving us back that data. That was the reality,” Dr. Leachman said.

There were valuable lessons in that setback. The OHSU team now has a better grasp of the challenges of trying to build a data-collection system that could prove helpful in assessing skin lesions.

“If you don’t build it, you don’t know” what can go wrong, she said.

Dr. Leachman said other scientists who have worked on similar projects to build skin-analyzing apps have probably encountered the same difficulties, although they may not reveal these issues. “I think that a lot of people build these things and then they try to make it into something that it’s not,” she said.

In addition to the challenges with gathering images, dermatologists frequently need to rely on touch and other clues from in-person visits when diagnosing a suspicious lesion. “There’s something about seeing and feeling the skin in person that can’t be captured completely with an image,” Dr. Leachman said.
 

Public demand

Still, regulators must face the strong and immediate interest consumers have in using AI to check on moles and skin conditions, despite continuing questions about how well this approach might work.

In June, Google announced in a blog post that its Google Lens tool can help people research skin conditions.

“Just take a picture or upload a photo through Lens, and you’ll find visual matches to inform your search,” Google said in a blog post. “This feature also works if you’re not sure how to describe something else on your body, like a bump on your lip, a line on your nails or hair loss on your head. This feature is currently available in the U.S.”

Google also continues work on DermAssist, an app that’s intended to help people get personalized information about skin concerns using three photos. It is not currently publicly available, a Google spokesperson told this news organization.

Several skin-analyzing apps are already available in the Apple and Google Play stores. The British Association of Dermatologists last year issued a press release warning consumers that these apps may not be safe or effective and thus may put patients at risk for misdiagnosis.

“Unfortunately, AI-based apps which do not appear to meet regulatory requirements crop up more often than we would like,” the association said. “Additionally, the evidence to support the use of AI to diagnose skin conditions is weak which means that when it is used, it may not be safe or effective and it is possible that AI is putting patients at risk of misdiagnosis.”

Delicate and difficult balancing act

At this time, regulators, entrepreneurs, and the medical community face a delicate balancing act in considering how best to deploy AI in skin care, Dr. Ko said in an interview. (In addition to being one of the authors on the widely cited 2017 Nature paper mentioned above, Dr. Ko served until March as the initial chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Augmented Intelligence Committee.)

There are many solid reasons why there hasn’t been speedy progress to deploy AI in dermatology, as many envisioned a few years ago, Dr. Ko said.

Some of those reasons are specific to dermatology; this field doesn’t have a ready set of robust data from which to build AI-driven tools. In this aspect, dermatology is decades behind specialties like radiology, pathology, and ophthalmology, where clinicians have long been accumulating and storing images and other data in more standardized ways, Dr. Ko said.

“If you went to most dermatology practices and said, ‘Hey, let me learn from the data accumulated over the course of your 30-year practice to help us develop new tools,’” there may not be a whole lot there,” Dr. Ko said.

Beyond the start-up hurdles is the larger concern Dr. Ko shares with other dermatologists who work in this field, such as Dr. Daneshjou and Dr. Leachman. What would clinicians without much dermatology training and patients do with the readings from AI-driven tools and apps?

There would need to be significant research to show that such products actually help get people treated for skin diseases, including skin cancer.

Dr. Ko praised Google for being open about the stumbles with its efforts to use its AI tool for identifying diabetic retinopathy in a test in Thailand. Real-world hitches included poor Internet connections and poor image quality.

Developing reliable systems, processes, and workflows will be paramount for eventual widespread use of AI-driven tools, Dr. Ko said.

“It’s all those hidden things that are not sexy,” as are announcements about algorithms working about as well as clinicians in diagnosis, Dr. Ko said. “They don’t get the media attention, but they’re going to be make or break for AI, not just in our field but [for] AI in general.”

But he added that there also needs to be a recognition that AI-driven tools and products, even if somewhat imperfect, can help people get access to care.

In many cases, shortages of specialists prevent people from getting screened for treatable conditions such as skin cancer and retinopathy. The challenge is setting an appropriate standard to make sure that AI-driven products would help most patients in practice, without raising it so high that no such products emerge.

“There’s a risk of holding too high of a bar,” Dr. Ko said. “There is harm in not moving forward as well.”

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

An influential Nature paper predicted in 2017 that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could unleash remarkable changes in dermatology, such as using phones to help detect skin cancer earlier.

Given that about 6.3 billion smartphones would soon be in use, this AI approach could provide a gateway for “low-cost universal access to vital diagnostic care,” wrote Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, a dermatologist, and colleagues from Stanford (Calif.) University that included other dermatologists and engineers.

Dr. Ko and his coauthors described how they trained a computer system to identify both benign and cancerous skin lesions. They used an approach known as a convolutional neural network, often deployed for projects seeking to train computers to “see” through image analysis. They said that their test of this system found it to be on par with the performance of 21 board-certified dermatologists.

“This fast, scalable method is deployable on mobile devices and holds the potential for substantial clinical impact, including broadening the scope of primary care practice and augmenting clinical decision-making for dermatology specialists,” they wrote in their paper.

More than 6 years later, there are signs that companies are making progress toward moving skin checks using this technology into U.S. primary care settings – but only with devices that employ special tools.

It may prove tougher for companies to eventually secure the sign-off of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for mobile apps intended to let consumers handle this task with smartphones.

Such tools would need to be proven highly accurate before release, because too many false positives mean that people would be needlessly exposed to biopsies, said Sancy A. Leachman, MD, PhD, director of the melanoma research program and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

And false-negative readings would allow melanoma to advance and even be fatal, Dr. Leachman told this news organization.

Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford who has studied the promise and the pitfalls of AI in medicine, said that developers of a consumer skin-check app would need to know how people would react to their readings. That includes a good sense of how often they would appropriately seek medical care for a concerning reading. (She was not an author of the previously cited Nature paper but has published widely on AI.)

Christopher Smith

“The direct-to-consumer diagnostic space makes me nervous,” Dr. Daneshjou said in an interview. “In order to do it, you really need to have good studies in consumer populations prior to release. You need to show how effective it is with follow up.”
 

FDA shows interest – and reservations

As of July, the FDA had not yet given its okay for marketing of any consumer apps intended to help people detect signs of skin cancer, an agency spokesperson told this news organization.

To date, the agency has only cleared two AI-based products for this task, both meant to be used by dermatologists. And only one of these two products, Scibase’s Nevisense, remains in use in the United States. The other, MelaFind, has been discontinued. In 2017, Strata Skin Sciences said that the product did not win “a significant enough level of acceptance by dermatologists to justify the continued investment” in it. And the company said it notified the 90 owners of MelaFind devices in the United States that it would no longer support the device.

But another company, DermaSensor, said in a 2021 press release that it expects its AI-powered tool, also named DermaSensor, to be the “first ever FDA cleared or approved skin cancer detection device for primary care providers.”

The Miami-based firm said that the FDA had granted its product a “breakthrough” device designation. A breakthrough designation means that agency staff will offer extra help and guidance to companies in developing a product, because of its expected benefit for patients.

In a 2020 press release, 3Derm Systems, now owned by Digital Diagnostics, made a similar announcement about winning FDA breakthrough designation for an AI-powered tool intended to allow skin checks in primary care settings.

(The FDA generally does not comment on its reviews of experimental drugs and devices, but companies can do so. Several other companies have announced FDA breakthrough designations for AI-driven products intended to check for skin lesions, but these might be used in settings other than primary care.)

Both DermaSensor and Digital Diagnostics have chairs with notable track records for winning FDA approvals of other devices. DermaSensor’s Maurice Ferre, MD, also is the chairman of Insightec, which in 2016 won the first FDA approval for a device with a breakthrough designation device that uses ultrasound to treat tremors.

In 2018, the FDA allowed Digital Diagnostics, then called IDx, to introduce in the United States the first medical device using AI in primary care offices to check for signs of diabetic retinopathy. This product also had an FDA breakthrough designation. The executive chairman and founder of Digital Diagnostics is Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD, professor of engineering and ophthalmology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. Dr. Abramoff and the team behind the AI tool for retinopathy, now called the LumineticsCore system, also scored a notable win with Medicare, which agreed to cover use of the product through a dedicated CPT code.
 

FDA draft guidance

The FDA has acknowledged the interest in broadening access to skin checks via AI.

This was a topic of discussion at a 2-day advisory committee meeting the FDA held last year. In April 2023, the FDA outlined some of its expectations for future regulation of skin-analyzing tools as part of a wide-ranging draft guidance document intended to aid companies in their efforts to develop products using a form of AI known as machine learning.

In the document, the FDA described how it might approach applications for “hypothetical” devices using this kind of AI, such as a special tool to help primary care clinicians identify lesions in need of further investigation. Such a product would use a specific camera for gathering data for its initial clearance, in the FDA’s hypothetical scenario.

The FDA staff offered technical suggestions about what the developer of this hypothetical device would have to do to extend its use to smartphones and tablets while keeping clinicians as the intended users.

Some of these expanded uses could fall within the bounds of the FDA’s initial clearance and thus not trigger a need for a new marketing submission, the agency said. But seeking to shift this hypothetical product to “patient-facing” use would require a new marketing submission to the FDA, the agency said.

In this scenario, a company would expect people to follow up with a dermatologist after receiving a report suggesting cancer. Thus, this kind of a change could expose patients to “many new, unconsidered risks,” the FDA said.
 

Reality check?

The state of current efforts to develop consumer apps for checking for skin cancer seems to be summarized well on the website for the MoleMapper. The app was developed by researchers at OHSU to help people track how their moles change over time.

“Mole Mapper is NOT designed to provide medical advice, professional diagnosis, opinion, or treatment. Currently, there is not enough data to develop an app that can diagnose melanoma, but if enough data is collected through Mole Mapper and shared with researchers, it may be possible in the future,” the app’s website says.

OHSU released MoleMapper as an iPhone app in 2015. The aim of this project was to help people track the moles on their skin while also fostering an experiment in “citizen science,” OHSU’s Dr. Leachman told this news organization.

OHSU researchers hoped that the digital images taken by members of the public on cell phones could one day be used to develop diagnostic algorithms for melanoma.

But around 2017, the MoleMapper team realized that they would not be able to create a diagnostic app at this time, Dr. Leachman explained. They could not collect enough data of adequate quality.

And by 2021, it was clear that they could not even develop a successful app to triage patients to assess who needs to be seen quickly. The amount of data required was, at this point, beyond what the team could collect, Dr. Leachman said in an interview.

That was a disappointment because the team had successfully completed the difficult task of creating a confidential pathway for collecting these images via both iPhones and smartphones run on Android.

“We thought if we built it, people would come, but that’s not what happened,” Dr. Leachman said. Many patients didn’t want their images used for research or would fail to follow up with details of biopsy reports. Sometimes images were not captured well enough to be of use.

“You need at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of data points that have been verified with pathologies, and nobody was giving us back that data. That was the reality,” Dr. Leachman said.

There were valuable lessons in that setback. The OHSU team now has a better grasp of the challenges of trying to build a data-collection system that could prove helpful in assessing skin lesions.

“If you don’t build it, you don’t know” what can go wrong, she said.

Dr. Leachman said other scientists who have worked on similar projects to build skin-analyzing apps have probably encountered the same difficulties, although they may not reveal these issues. “I think that a lot of people build these things and then they try to make it into something that it’s not,” she said.

In addition to the challenges with gathering images, dermatologists frequently need to rely on touch and other clues from in-person visits when diagnosing a suspicious lesion. “There’s something about seeing and feeling the skin in person that can’t be captured completely with an image,” Dr. Leachman said.
 

Public demand

Still, regulators must face the strong and immediate interest consumers have in using AI to check on moles and skin conditions, despite continuing questions about how well this approach might work.

In June, Google announced in a blog post that its Google Lens tool can help people research skin conditions.

“Just take a picture or upload a photo through Lens, and you’ll find visual matches to inform your search,” Google said in a blog post. “This feature also works if you’re not sure how to describe something else on your body, like a bump on your lip, a line on your nails or hair loss on your head. This feature is currently available in the U.S.”

Google also continues work on DermAssist, an app that’s intended to help people get personalized information about skin concerns using three photos. It is not currently publicly available, a Google spokesperson told this news organization.

Several skin-analyzing apps are already available in the Apple and Google Play stores. The British Association of Dermatologists last year issued a press release warning consumers that these apps may not be safe or effective and thus may put patients at risk for misdiagnosis.

“Unfortunately, AI-based apps which do not appear to meet regulatory requirements crop up more often than we would like,” the association said. “Additionally, the evidence to support the use of AI to diagnose skin conditions is weak which means that when it is used, it may not be safe or effective and it is possible that AI is putting patients at risk of misdiagnosis.”

Delicate and difficult balancing act

At this time, regulators, entrepreneurs, and the medical community face a delicate balancing act in considering how best to deploy AI in skin care, Dr. Ko said in an interview. (In addition to being one of the authors on the widely cited 2017 Nature paper mentioned above, Dr. Ko served until March as the initial chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Augmented Intelligence Committee.)

There are many solid reasons why there hasn’t been speedy progress to deploy AI in dermatology, as many envisioned a few years ago, Dr. Ko said.

Some of those reasons are specific to dermatology; this field doesn’t have a ready set of robust data from which to build AI-driven tools. In this aspect, dermatology is decades behind specialties like radiology, pathology, and ophthalmology, where clinicians have long been accumulating and storing images and other data in more standardized ways, Dr. Ko said.

“If you went to most dermatology practices and said, ‘Hey, let me learn from the data accumulated over the course of your 30-year practice to help us develop new tools,’” there may not be a whole lot there,” Dr. Ko said.

Beyond the start-up hurdles is the larger concern Dr. Ko shares with other dermatologists who work in this field, such as Dr. Daneshjou and Dr. Leachman. What would clinicians without much dermatology training and patients do with the readings from AI-driven tools and apps?

There would need to be significant research to show that such products actually help get people treated for skin diseases, including skin cancer.

Dr. Ko praised Google for being open about the stumbles with its efforts to use its AI tool for identifying diabetic retinopathy in a test in Thailand. Real-world hitches included poor Internet connections and poor image quality.

Developing reliable systems, processes, and workflows will be paramount for eventual widespread use of AI-driven tools, Dr. Ko said.

“It’s all those hidden things that are not sexy,” as are announcements about algorithms working about as well as clinicians in diagnosis, Dr. Ko said. “They don’t get the media attention, but they’re going to be make or break for AI, not just in our field but [for] AI in general.”

But he added that there also needs to be a recognition that AI-driven tools and products, even if somewhat imperfect, can help people get access to care.

In many cases, shortages of specialists prevent people from getting screened for treatable conditions such as skin cancer and retinopathy. The challenge is setting an appropriate standard to make sure that AI-driven products would help most patients in practice, without raising it so high that no such products emerge.

“There’s a risk of holding too high of a bar,” Dr. Ko said. “There is harm in not moving forward as well.”

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A multicenter, international phase 2 trial known as EDELIFE is underway to investigate the safety and efficacy of an in utero treatment for developing males with X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia (XLHED).

This condition is caused by mutations in the gene coding for ectodysplasin A (EDA), a protein that signals the epithelial-mesenchymal transition during embryogenesis. EDA loss or dysfunction precludes binding to its endogenous EDA1 receptor (EDAR), and downstream development of teeth, hair, nails, and skin adnexae, most notably eccrine glands.

shironosov/Getty Images

The treatment, ER004, is a first-in-class signaling protein EDA replacement molecule now under investigation by the EspeRare Foundation, with support from the Pierre Fabre Foundation. The pioneering clinical trial is evaluating the delivery of ER004 protein replacement in utero to affected fetuses, allowing antenatal binding to the EDAR. According to the EDELIFE web site, when ER004 is administered to XLHED-affected males in utero, it “should act as a replacement for the missing EDA and trigger the process that leads to the normal development of a baby’s skin, teeth, hair, and sweat glands, leading to better formation of these structures.”

The protein is delivered into the amniotic fluid via a needle and syringe under ultrasound guidance. In a report on this treatment used in a pair of affected twins and a third XLHED-affected male published in 2018, the authors reported that the three babies were able to sweat normally after birth, “and XLHED-related illness had not developed by 14-22 months of age.”

The goal of the prospective, open-label, genotype match–controlled EDELIFE trial is to confirm the efficacy and safety results for ER004 in a larger group of boys, and to determine if it can lead to robust, and long-lasting improvement in XLHED-associated defects.

In the United States, the first pregnant woman to join the study received the treatment in February 2023 at Washington University in St. Louis. Other clinical sites are located in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Led by principal investigator Holm Schneider, MD, of the University Erlanger-Nurnberg (Germany), researchers are seeking to enroll mothers aged 18 years and older who are genetically confirmed carriers of the XLHED mutation and pregnant with a boy or considering pregnancy. The control group will include XLHED-affected males, 6 months to 60 years old, who are blood relatives of the pregnant woman participating in the study.

Clinicians treating affected families or potentially eligible subjects are encouraged to contact the trial investigators at this link.

A multicenter, international phase 2 trial known as EDELIFE is underway to investigate the safety and efficacy of an in utero treatment for developing males with X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia (XLHED).

This condition is caused by mutations in the gene coding for ectodysplasin A (EDA), a protein that signals the epithelial-mesenchymal transition during embryogenesis. EDA loss or dysfunction precludes binding to its endogenous EDA1 receptor (EDAR), and downstream development of teeth, hair, nails, and skin adnexae, most notably eccrine glands.

shironosov/Getty Images

The treatment, ER004, is a first-in-class signaling protein EDA replacement molecule now under investigation by the EspeRare Foundation, with support from the Pierre Fabre Foundation. The pioneering clinical trial is evaluating the delivery of ER004 protein replacement in utero to affected fetuses, allowing antenatal binding to the EDAR. According to the EDELIFE web site, when ER004 is administered to XLHED-affected males in utero, it “should act as a replacement for the missing EDA and trigger the process that leads to the normal development of a baby’s skin, teeth, hair, and sweat glands, leading to better formation of these structures.”

The protein is delivered into the amniotic fluid via a needle and syringe under ultrasound guidance. In a report on this treatment used in a pair of affected twins and a third XLHED-affected male published in 2018, the authors reported that the three babies were able to sweat normally after birth, “and XLHED-related illness had not developed by 14-22 months of age.”

The goal of the prospective, open-label, genotype match–controlled EDELIFE trial is to confirm the efficacy and safety results for ER004 in a larger group of boys, and to determine if it can lead to robust, and long-lasting improvement in XLHED-associated defects.

In the United States, the first pregnant woman to join the study received the treatment in February 2023 at Washington University in St. Louis. Other clinical sites are located in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Led by principal investigator Holm Schneider, MD, of the University Erlanger-Nurnberg (Germany), researchers are seeking to enroll mothers aged 18 years and older who are genetically confirmed carriers of the XLHED mutation and pregnant with a boy or considering pregnancy. The control group will include XLHED-affected males, 6 months to 60 years old, who are blood relatives of the pregnant woman participating in the study.

Clinicians treating affected families or potentially eligible subjects are encouraged to contact the trial investigators at this link.

A multicenter, international phase 2 trial known as EDELIFE is underway to investigate the safety and efficacy of an in utero treatment for developing males with X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia (XLHED).

This condition is caused by mutations in the gene coding for ectodysplasin A (EDA), a protein that signals the epithelial-mesenchymal transition during embryogenesis. EDA loss or dysfunction precludes binding to its endogenous EDA1 receptor (EDAR), and downstream development of teeth, hair, nails, and skin adnexae, most notably eccrine glands.

shironosov/Getty Images

The treatment, ER004, is a first-in-class signaling protein EDA replacement molecule now under investigation by the EspeRare Foundation, with support from the Pierre Fabre Foundation. The pioneering clinical trial is evaluating the delivery of ER004 protein replacement in utero to affected fetuses, allowing antenatal binding to the EDAR. According to the EDELIFE web site, when ER004 is administered to XLHED-affected males in utero, it “should act as a replacement for the missing EDA and trigger the process that leads to the normal development of a baby’s skin, teeth, hair, and sweat glands, leading to better formation of these structures.”

The protein is delivered into the amniotic fluid via a needle and syringe under ultrasound guidance. In a report on this treatment used in a pair of affected twins and a third XLHED-affected male published in 2018, the authors reported that the three babies were able to sweat normally after birth, “and XLHED-related illness had not developed by 14-22 months of age.”

The goal of the prospective, open-label, genotype match–controlled EDELIFE trial is to confirm the efficacy and safety results for ER004 in a larger group of boys, and to determine if it can lead to robust, and long-lasting improvement in XLHED-associated defects.

In the United States, the first pregnant woman to join the study received the treatment in February 2023 at Washington University in St. Louis. Other clinical sites are located in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Led by principal investigator Holm Schneider, MD, of the University Erlanger-Nurnberg (Germany), researchers are seeking to enroll mothers aged 18 years and older who are genetically confirmed carriers of the XLHED mutation and pregnant with a boy or considering pregnancy. The control group will include XLHED-affected males, 6 months to 60 years old, who are blood relatives of the pregnant woman participating in the study.

Clinicians treating affected families or potentially eligible subjects are encouraged to contact the trial investigators at this link.

Female sex, hyperlipidemia, Medicaid insurance, earlier year of biologic initiation, shorter duration of psoriasis, and prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use were associated with multiple biologic failure in patients with psoriasis, results from a prospective cohort demonstrated.

“Prior cross-sectional and single-center studies have primarily analyzed therapeutic failure of a single biologic or biologics within one class,” researchers led by Wilson Liao, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “However, failure of multiple biologics targeting different signaling pathways is common over the course of treatment. These ‘multiple biologic failure’ patients are not well-characterized, and the patterns of biologics attempted and sociodemographic or clinical features that may predict difficult treatment are incompletely studied.”

To bridge this gap, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort study from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry, which collected data from dermatologist-diagnosed patients with psoriasis who started or switched to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved systemic therapy for psoriasis during routine dermatology visits from April 15, 2015, to May 10, 2022. This period included data from 17,196 patients across 259 private and 209 academic sites from 580 physicians in the United States and Canada.

From this registry, Dr. Liao and colleagues identified 1,039 patients with 24 months or more of follow-up data, a confirmed index biologic start date, and valid baseline assessment data, and categorized them into three cohorts:

• 490 (47.2%) with good response (GR), defined as patients with 24 months or more of continued index biologic use by the last registry visit.
• 65 (6.3%) with multiple biologic failure (MBF), defined as patients administered two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes who discontinued these biologics because of physician-reported “inadequate initial response,” “failure to maintain initial response,” or “active disease” despite 90 or more days of use per biologic.
• 484 (46.6%) categorized as “other,” defined as patients failed by one biologic or who discontinued treatment for nonmedical reasons.

The researchers used multivariable logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes that differed between the MBF and GR groups. The mean age of the patients in the study was 49.1 years, 44.2% were female, 77.9% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and the mean duration of psoriasis was 11.5 years.

On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with MBF, compared with those with GR, included female at birth (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29; confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.72), history of hyperlipidemia (OR = 3.14; CI, 1.35-7.30), Medicaid insurance (OR = 4.53; CI, 1.40-14.60), prior nonbiologic systemic therapy (OR = 2.47; CI, 1.16-5.25), higher psoriasis duration (OR = 0.60 per standard deviation [SD]; CI, 0.38-0.94), and later index biologic initiation (OR = 0.37 per year; CI, 0.27-0.52). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the duration of prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use was not associated with MBF (OR = 0.99; CI, 0.94-1.02; P = 0.56).

“Interestingly, health-related behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol use) and location/extent of psoriasis were not important differentiators between MBF and GR,” the authors noted. “We might suspect these features to correlate with MBF, as numerous observational studies found associations between health-related behaviors or psoriasis severity and presence at difficult-to-treat locations, which often relates to biologic use.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including underrepresentation of ethnoracial minorities and male sex at birth relative to reported psoriasis epidemiology, “possibly reflecting participation bias and reduced access to specialty care, given that patients were enrolled into the registry by dermatologists,” they wrote. “Patient adherence to prescribed biologic regimens between registry visits was not evaluated.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that despite the rapid expansion in biologic therapies for psoriasis, “analysis of real-world use patterns and patient characteristics has been limited – particularly for those who have failed multiple treatments. These findings suggest that there indeed may be some key differences between patients who have had to cycle through multiple biologics versus those who have had a sustained satisfactory response on a single therapy, such as disease duration and previous nonbiologic treatments.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Female sex, hyperlipidemia, Medicaid insurance, earlier year of biologic initiation, shorter duration of psoriasis, and prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use were associated with multiple biologic failure in patients with psoriasis, results from a prospective cohort demonstrated.

“Prior cross-sectional and single-center studies have primarily analyzed therapeutic failure of a single biologic or biologics within one class,” researchers led by Wilson Liao, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “However, failure of multiple biologics targeting different signaling pathways is common over the course of treatment. These ‘multiple biologic failure’ patients are not well-characterized, and the patterns of biologics attempted and sociodemographic or clinical features that may predict difficult treatment are incompletely studied.”

To bridge this gap, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort study from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry, which collected data from dermatologist-diagnosed patients with psoriasis who started or switched to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved systemic therapy for psoriasis during routine dermatology visits from April 15, 2015, to May 10, 2022. This period included data from 17,196 patients across 259 private and 209 academic sites from 580 physicians in the United States and Canada.

From this registry, Dr. Liao and colleagues identified 1,039 patients with 24 months or more of follow-up data, a confirmed index biologic start date, and valid baseline assessment data, and categorized them into three cohorts:

• 490 (47.2%) with good response (GR), defined as patients with 24 months or more of continued index biologic use by the last registry visit.
• 65 (6.3%) with multiple biologic failure (MBF), defined as patients administered two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes who discontinued these biologics because of physician-reported “inadequate initial response,” “failure to maintain initial response,” or “active disease” despite 90 or more days of use per biologic.
• 484 (46.6%) categorized as “other,” defined as patients failed by one biologic or who discontinued treatment for nonmedical reasons.

The researchers used multivariable logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes that differed between the MBF and GR groups. The mean age of the patients in the study was 49.1 years, 44.2% were female, 77.9% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and the mean duration of psoriasis was 11.5 years.

On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with MBF, compared with those with GR, included female at birth (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29; confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.72), history of hyperlipidemia (OR = 3.14; CI, 1.35-7.30), Medicaid insurance (OR = 4.53; CI, 1.40-14.60), prior nonbiologic systemic therapy (OR = 2.47; CI, 1.16-5.25), higher psoriasis duration (OR = 0.60 per standard deviation [SD]; CI, 0.38-0.94), and later index biologic initiation (OR = 0.37 per year; CI, 0.27-0.52). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the duration of prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use was not associated with MBF (OR = 0.99; CI, 0.94-1.02; P = 0.56).

“Interestingly, health-related behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol use) and location/extent of psoriasis were not important differentiators between MBF and GR,” the authors noted. “We might suspect these features to correlate with MBF, as numerous observational studies found associations between health-related behaviors or psoriasis severity and presence at difficult-to-treat locations, which often relates to biologic use.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including underrepresentation of ethnoracial minorities and male sex at birth relative to reported psoriasis epidemiology, “possibly reflecting participation bias and reduced access to specialty care, given that patients were enrolled into the registry by dermatologists,” they wrote. “Patient adherence to prescribed biologic regimens between registry visits was not evaluated.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that despite the rapid expansion in biologic therapies for psoriasis, “analysis of real-world use patterns and patient characteristics has been limited – particularly for those who have failed multiple treatments. These findings suggest that there indeed may be some key differences between patients who have had to cycle through multiple biologics versus those who have had a sustained satisfactory response on a single therapy, such as disease duration and previous nonbiologic treatments.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Female sex, hyperlipidemia, Medicaid insurance, earlier year of biologic initiation, shorter duration of psoriasis, and prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use were associated with multiple biologic failure in patients with psoriasis, results from a prospective cohort demonstrated.

“Prior cross-sectional and single-center studies have primarily analyzed therapeutic failure of a single biologic or biologics within one class,” researchers led by Wilson Liao, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “However, failure of multiple biologics targeting different signaling pathways is common over the course of treatment. These ‘multiple biologic failure’ patients are not well-characterized, and the patterns of biologics attempted and sociodemographic or clinical features that may predict difficult treatment are incompletely studied.”

To bridge this gap, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort study from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry, which collected data from dermatologist-diagnosed patients with psoriasis who started or switched to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved systemic therapy for psoriasis during routine dermatology visits from April 15, 2015, to May 10, 2022. This period included data from 17,196 patients across 259 private and 209 academic sites from 580 physicians in the United States and Canada.

From this registry, Dr. Liao and colleagues identified 1,039 patients with 24 months or more of follow-up data, a confirmed index biologic start date, and valid baseline assessment data, and categorized them into three cohorts:

• 490 (47.2%) with good response (GR), defined as patients with 24 months or more of continued index biologic use by the last registry visit.
• 65 (6.3%) with multiple biologic failure (MBF), defined as patients administered two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes who discontinued these biologics because of physician-reported “inadequate initial response,” “failure to maintain initial response,” or “active disease” despite 90 or more days of use per biologic.
• 484 (46.6%) categorized as “other,” defined as patients failed by one biologic or who discontinued treatment for nonmedical reasons.

The researchers used multivariable logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes that differed between the MBF and GR groups. The mean age of the patients in the study was 49.1 years, 44.2% were female, 77.9% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and the mean duration of psoriasis was 11.5 years.

On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with MBF, compared with those with GR, included female at birth (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29; confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.72), history of hyperlipidemia (OR = 3.14; CI, 1.35-7.30), Medicaid insurance (OR = 4.53; CI, 1.40-14.60), prior nonbiologic systemic therapy (OR = 2.47; CI, 1.16-5.25), higher psoriasis duration (OR = 0.60 per standard deviation [SD]; CI, 0.38-0.94), and later index biologic initiation (OR = 0.37 per year; CI, 0.27-0.52). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the duration of prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use was not associated with MBF (OR = 0.99; CI, 0.94-1.02; P = 0.56).

“Interestingly, health-related behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol use) and location/extent of psoriasis were not important differentiators between MBF and GR,” the authors noted. “We might suspect these features to correlate with MBF, as numerous observational studies found associations between health-related behaviors or psoriasis severity and presence at difficult-to-treat locations, which often relates to biologic use.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including underrepresentation of ethnoracial minorities and male sex at birth relative to reported psoriasis epidemiology, “possibly reflecting participation bias and reduced access to specialty care, given that patients were enrolled into the registry by dermatologists,” they wrote. “Patient adherence to prescribed biologic regimens between registry visits was not evaluated.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that despite the rapid expansion in biologic therapies for psoriasis, “analysis of real-world use patterns and patient characteristics has been limited – particularly for those who have failed multiple treatments. These findings suggest that there indeed may be some key differences between patients who have had to cycle through multiple biologics versus those who have had a sustained satisfactory response on a single therapy, such as disease duration and previous nonbiologic treatments.”

Dr. Chovatiya

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Patel: A friend recently joked with me and said, “I wish you were a dermatologist so you could hook me up with Botox and fillers.” Well, little does this friend know that I could be a certified cosmetic injector just after a weekend course. Botox parties, here I come?

I can’t blame any health care professional for having a side hustle. People are burned out, want to supplement their income, or scale back clinical hours. According to one Medscape survey, almost 40% of physicians do have some form of a side hustle, whether it is consulting, speaking engagements, being an expert witness, or moonlighting. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who have taken on Botox injecting as a way to make some extra cash.

Now, going back to me and smoothing out wrinkles. I’m a pediatric hospitalist. I’ve never injected an aesthetic product in anyone’s face. When it comes to sharp objects and faces, I’ve sewn lacerations and drained abscesses. In my world, when we talk about botulinum toxin, we’re usually talking about botulism or the therapeutic treatment of migraines and muscle spasms – pathology. But even still, how hard would it actually be for me to go out and get certified to give Botox?

The National Laser Institute has a 2-day Botox and dermal filler training. “Our 2-day Botox and filler course will also teach you how to build a practice and capitalize on the enormous Botox and dermal filler market that exists in the United States.” That’s a lot to cover in 2 days. They even have lunch breaks.

Just from a quick search, I even found an online video course for $1,500. For an additional fee, you can have a live, hands-on component. There are so many trainings out there, including one that’s only 8 hours long, offered by Empire Medical. I also went and spoke with an employee at Empire Medical who told me that because I’m an MD, if I do the course, I can use my certificate and go directly to a manufacturer, buy Botox, and start injecting right away.

Now, is this training actually sufficient for me to go and get good results while minimizing adverse effects like brow ptosis, dry eyes, and asymmetry? I have no idea. According to a review from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, it’s crucial to understand anatomic landmarks, muscle function, baseline asymmetry, potential migration of the toxin, and site-specific precautions.

Okay, that sounds really intimidating, but people still do it. I saw a Business Insider article about a hospitalist who took a 2-day Botox course and then, to her credit, she trained under supervision for an additional 6 months. She then started hosting Botox parties and each time was making $3,500 to upwards of $20,000.

Let’s do some quick mental math. If I were to go online and buy Botox for $3-$6 a unit and then charge patients $15 a unit, and then I consider that in areas like the forehead or in between the eyes – I read that could take 25-50 units – and I repeat this for multiple patients, I can make a few thousand dollars. Well, I may have to adjust my prices according to the market, obviously, because I did see some Groupons advertising $10 per unit.

Who can get in on some Botox cosmetic cash action? Well, physicians can right away. For other health care professionals, it depends on the state. For example, in California, dentists cannot get Botox solely for cosmetic purposes, whereas in Arizona, they can. Generally speaking, NPs and PAs require some type of physician oversight or supervision, but again, it depends on the state.

Oh, and fun fact: Connecticut outright banned Botox parties and said that Botox must be performed “in a medical spa or licensed health care facility and by a Connecticut-licensed health care provider within his or her scope of practice.”

It definitely worries me that someone could go online or go overseas, buy Botox, claim to be a health care professional, and literally commit fraud. I found stories out there such as a couple in San Jose who are giving out Botox from their home without a license. They got arrested. Also, a woman in Alabama who lied about being a licensed dermatologist and did the same, or another woman in Los Angeles who got arrested after selling counterfeit Botox to undercover law enforcement. Surely, there are plenty more cases out there like this.

I asked Dr. Jacqueline Watchmaker, a board-certified dermatologist at U.S. Dermatology Partners in Arizona who has an expertise in cosmetic procedures, what she thought about the booming med spa industry and what, if any, regulatory changes she wanted to see.

Jacqueline Watchmaker, MD: I do think the fact that people can just go to a 1- or 2-day injection course and inject filler and Botox is concerning. I think the lack of regulation surrounding this topic is also very concerning.

There’s so much that goes into being a skilled injector. It’s an intricate knowledge of facial anatomy, which takes weeks, if not months, to really master. There’s actually injection technique, which can be very complex depending on the part of the face that you’re injecting. Even more important, it’s how to prevent complications, but also how to deal with complications if they do occur. There’s no way that these weekend injection courses are able to cover those topics in a thorough and satisfactory manner.

I see complications from med spas all the time, and I think it’s people going to injectors who are not skilled. They don’t know their anatomy, they don’t know the appropriate filler to use, and then heaven forbid there is a complication, they don’t know how to manage the complication – and then those patients get sent to me.

I think patients sometimes forget that these cosmetic procedures are true medical procedures. You need sterile technique. Again, you need to know the anatomy. It can look easy on social media, but there’s a large amount of thought behind it. I think there needs to be more regulation around this topic.

Dr. Patel: In one study, out of 400 people who received a cosmetic procedure, 50 reported an adverse event, such as discoloration or burns, and these adverse events were more likely to occur if a nonphysician was doing the procedure. Granted, this was a small study. You can’t make a generalization out of it, but this does add to the argument that there needs to be more regulation and oversight.

Let’s be real. The cosmetic injection side hustle is alive and well, but I’m good. I’m not going there. Maybe there should be some more quality control. At Botox parties, do people even ask if their injectors are certified or where they bought their vials?

You might be thinking that this isn’t a big deal because it’s just Botox. Let me ask you all a question: If you or your family member were going to go get Botox or another cosmetic injection, would it still not be a big deal?

Dr. Patel is a pediatric hospitalist, television producer, media contributor, and digital health enthusiast. He splits his time between New York City and San Francisco, as he is on faculty at Columbia University/Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. He reported conflicts of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Patel: A friend recently joked with me and said, “I wish you were a dermatologist so you could hook me up with Botox and fillers.” Well, little does this friend know that I could be a certified cosmetic injector just after a weekend course. Botox parties, here I come?

I can’t blame any health care professional for having a side hustle. People are burned out, want to supplement their income, or scale back clinical hours. According to one Medscape survey, almost 40% of physicians do have some form of a side hustle, whether it is consulting, speaking engagements, being an expert witness, or moonlighting. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who have taken on Botox injecting as a way to make some extra cash.

Now, going back to me and smoothing out wrinkles. I’m a pediatric hospitalist. I’ve never injected an aesthetic product in anyone’s face. When it comes to sharp objects and faces, I’ve sewn lacerations and drained abscesses. In my world, when we talk about botulinum toxin, we’re usually talking about botulism or the therapeutic treatment of migraines and muscle spasms – pathology. But even still, how hard would it actually be for me to go out and get certified to give Botox?

The National Laser Institute has a 2-day Botox and dermal filler training. “Our 2-day Botox and filler course will also teach you how to build a practice and capitalize on the enormous Botox and dermal filler market that exists in the United States.” That’s a lot to cover in 2 days. They even have lunch breaks.

Just from a quick search, I even found an online video course for $1,500. For an additional fee, you can have a live, hands-on component. There are so many trainings out there, including one that’s only 8 hours long, offered by Empire Medical. I also went and spoke with an employee at Empire Medical who told me that because I’m an MD, if I do the course, I can use my certificate and go directly to a manufacturer, buy Botox, and start injecting right away.

Now, is this training actually sufficient for me to go and get good results while minimizing adverse effects like brow ptosis, dry eyes, and asymmetry? I have no idea. According to a review from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, it’s crucial to understand anatomic landmarks, muscle function, baseline asymmetry, potential migration of the toxin, and site-specific precautions.

Okay, that sounds really intimidating, but people still do it. I saw a Business Insider article about a hospitalist who took a 2-day Botox course and then, to her credit, she trained under supervision for an additional 6 months. She then started hosting Botox parties and each time was making $3,500 to upwards of $20,000.

Let’s do some quick mental math. If I were to go online and buy Botox for $3-$6 a unit and then charge patients $15 a unit, and then I consider that in areas like the forehead or in between the eyes – I read that could take 25-50 units – and I repeat this for multiple patients, I can make a few thousand dollars. Well, I may have to adjust my prices according to the market, obviously, because I did see some Groupons advertising $10 per unit.

Who can get in on some Botox cosmetic cash action? Well, physicians can right away. For other health care professionals, it depends on the state. For example, in California, dentists cannot get Botox solely for cosmetic purposes, whereas in Arizona, they can. Generally speaking, NPs and PAs require some type of physician oversight or supervision, but again, it depends on the state.

Oh, and fun fact: Connecticut outright banned Botox parties and said that Botox must be performed “in a medical spa or licensed health care facility and by a Connecticut-licensed health care provider within his or her scope of practice.”

It definitely worries me that someone could go online or go overseas, buy Botox, claim to be a health care professional, and literally commit fraud. I found stories out there such as a couple in San Jose who are giving out Botox from their home without a license. They got arrested. Also, a woman in Alabama who lied about being a licensed dermatologist and did the same, or another woman in Los Angeles who got arrested after selling counterfeit Botox to undercover law enforcement. Surely, there are plenty more cases out there like this.

I asked Dr. Jacqueline Watchmaker, a board-certified dermatologist at U.S. Dermatology Partners in Arizona who has an expertise in cosmetic procedures, what she thought about the booming med spa industry and what, if any, regulatory changes she wanted to see.

Jacqueline Watchmaker, MD: I do think the fact that people can just go to a 1- or 2-day injection course and inject filler and Botox is concerning. I think the lack of regulation surrounding this topic is also very concerning.

There’s so much that goes into being a skilled injector. It’s an intricate knowledge of facial anatomy, which takes weeks, if not months, to really master. There’s actually injection technique, which can be very complex depending on the part of the face that you’re injecting. Even more important, it’s how to prevent complications, but also how to deal with complications if they do occur. There’s no way that these weekend injection courses are able to cover those topics in a thorough and satisfactory manner.

I see complications from med spas all the time, and I think it’s people going to injectors who are not skilled. They don’t know their anatomy, they don’t know the appropriate filler to use, and then heaven forbid there is a complication, they don’t know how to manage the complication – and then those patients get sent to me.

I think patients sometimes forget that these cosmetic procedures are true medical procedures. You need sterile technique. Again, you need to know the anatomy. It can look easy on social media, but there’s a large amount of thought behind it. I think there needs to be more regulation around this topic.

Dr. Patel: In one study, out of 400 people who received a cosmetic procedure, 50 reported an adverse event, such as discoloration or burns, and these adverse events were more likely to occur if a nonphysician was doing the procedure. Granted, this was a small study. You can’t make a generalization out of it, but this does add to the argument that there needs to be more regulation and oversight.

Let’s be real. The cosmetic injection side hustle is alive and well, but I’m good. I’m not going there. Maybe there should be some more quality control. At Botox parties, do people even ask if their injectors are certified or where they bought their vials?

You might be thinking that this isn’t a big deal because it’s just Botox. Let me ask you all a question: If you or your family member were going to go get Botox or another cosmetic injection, would it still not be a big deal?

Dr. Patel is a pediatric hospitalist, television producer, media contributor, and digital health enthusiast. He splits his time between New York City and San Francisco, as he is on faculty at Columbia University/Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. He reported conflicts of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Patel: A friend recently joked with me and said, “I wish you were a dermatologist so you could hook me up with Botox and fillers.” Well, little does this friend know that I could be a certified cosmetic injector just after a weekend course. Botox parties, here I come?

I can’t blame any health care professional for having a side hustle. People are burned out, want to supplement their income, or scale back clinical hours. According to one Medscape survey, almost 40% of physicians do have some form of a side hustle, whether it is consulting, speaking engagements, being an expert witness, or moonlighting. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who have taken on Botox injecting as a way to make some extra cash.

Now, going back to me and smoothing out wrinkles. I’m a pediatric hospitalist. I’ve never injected an aesthetic product in anyone’s face. When it comes to sharp objects and faces, I’ve sewn lacerations and drained abscesses. In my world, when we talk about botulinum toxin, we’re usually talking about botulism or the therapeutic treatment of migraines and muscle spasms – pathology. But even still, how hard would it actually be for me to go out and get certified to give Botox?

The National Laser Institute has a 2-day Botox and dermal filler training. “Our 2-day Botox and filler course will also teach you how to build a practice and capitalize on the enormous Botox and dermal filler market that exists in the United States.” That’s a lot to cover in 2 days. They even have lunch breaks.

Just from a quick search, I even found an online video course for $1,500. For an additional fee, you can have a live, hands-on component. There are so many trainings out there, including one that’s only 8 hours long, offered by Empire Medical. I also went and spoke with an employee at Empire Medical who told me that because I’m an MD, if I do the course, I can use my certificate and go directly to a manufacturer, buy Botox, and start injecting right away.

Now, is this training actually sufficient for me to go and get good results while minimizing adverse effects like brow ptosis, dry eyes, and asymmetry? I have no idea. According to a review from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, it’s crucial to understand anatomic landmarks, muscle function, baseline asymmetry, potential migration of the toxin, and site-specific precautions.

Okay, that sounds really intimidating, but people still do it. I saw a Business Insider article about a hospitalist who took a 2-day Botox course and then, to her credit, she trained under supervision for an additional 6 months. She then started hosting Botox parties and each time was making $3,500 to upwards of $20,000.

Let’s do some quick mental math. If I were to go online and buy Botox for $3-$6 a unit and then charge patients $15 a unit, and then I consider that in areas like the forehead or in between the eyes – I read that could take 25-50 units – and I repeat this for multiple patients, I can make a few thousand dollars. Well, I may have to adjust my prices according to the market, obviously, because I did see some Groupons advertising $10 per unit.

Who can get in on some Botox cosmetic cash action? Well, physicians can right away. For other health care professionals, it depends on the state. For example, in California, dentists cannot get Botox solely for cosmetic purposes, whereas in Arizona, they can. Generally speaking, NPs and PAs require some type of physician oversight or supervision, but again, it depends on the state.

Oh, and fun fact: Connecticut outright banned Botox parties and said that Botox must be performed “in a medical spa or licensed health care facility and by a Connecticut-licensed health care provider within his or her scope of practice.”

It definitely worries me that someone could go online or go overseas, buy Botox, claim to be a health care professional, and literally commit fraud. I found stories out there such as a couple in San Jose who are giving out Botox from their home without a license. They got arrested. Also, a woman in Alabama who lied about being a licensed dermatologist and did the same, or another woman in Los Angeles who got arrested after selling counterfeit Botox to undercover law enforcement. Surely, there are plenty more cases out there like this.

I asked Dr. Jacqueline Watchmaker, a board-certified dermatologist at U.S. Dermatology Partners in Arizona who has an expertise in cosmetic procedures, what she thought about the booming med spa industry and what, if any, regulatory changes she wanted to see.

Jacqueline Watchmaker, MD: I do think the fact that people can just go to a 1- or 2-day injection course and inject filler and Botox is concerning. I think the lack of regulation surrounding this topic is also very concerning.

There’s so much that goes into being a skilled injector. It’s an intricate knowledge of facial anatomy, which takes weeks, if not months, to really master. There’s actually injection technique, which can be very complex depending on the part of the face that you’re injecting. Even more important, it’s how to prevent complications, but also how to deal with complications if they do occur. There’s no way that these weekend injection courses are able to cover those topics in a thorough and satisfactory manner.

I see complications from med spas all the time, and I think it’s people going to injectors who are not skilled. They don’t know their anatomy, they don’t know the appropriate filler to use, and then heaven forbid there is a complication, they don’t know how to manage the complication – and then those patients get sent to me.

I think patients sometimes forget that these cosmetic procedures are true medical procedures. You need sterile technique. Again, you need to know the anatomy. It can look easy on social media, but there’s a large amount of thought behind it. I think there needs to be more regulation around this topic.

Dr. Patel: In one study, out of 400 people who received a cosmetic procedure, 50 reported an adverse event, such as discoloration or burns, and these adverse events were more likely to occur if a nonphysician was doing the procedure. Granted, this was a small study. You can’t make a generalization out of it, but this does add to the argument that there needs to be more regulation and oversight.

Let’s be real. The cosmetic injection side hustle is alive and well, but I’m good. I’m not going there. Maybe there should be some more quality control. At Botox parties, do people even ask if their injectors are certified or where they bought their vials?

You might be thinking that this isn’t a big deal because it’s just Botox. Let me ask you all a question: If you or your family member were going to go get Botox or another cosmetic injection, would it still not be a big deal?

Dr. Patel is a pediatric hospitalist, television producer, media contributor, and digital health enthusiast. He splits his time between New York City and San Francisco, as he is on faculty at Columbia University/Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. He reported conflicts of interest with Medumo.

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

Outsourcing certain staff functions in a practice to outside contractors working in remote locations has become commonplace in many medical practices.

Health care outsourcing services, also known as virtual assistants (VAs), were already booming in 2017, when volume grew by 36%. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 normalized off-site work, which was a boon to outsourcing providers.

The most popular services being outsourced today by medical practices include billing, scribes, telephone calls to patients, and processing prior authorizations.

“Outsourcing is not for everyone, but I’ve seen it work for many practices,” said Lara Hochman, MD, a practice management consultant in Austin, Tex. She said that practices have used outsourcing to solve problems like high staff turnover, tight budgets, and inefficient use of staff.

When in-house staffing is insufficient or not appropriately aligned with the task, outsourcing can produce big savings, said Teri Deabler, a practice management consultant with the Texas Medical Association.

For example, she said that a client was paying an in-house accountant $80,000 a year. When the accountant retired, she was replaced with a part-time bookkeeper earning $20,000 while her accounting work was outsourced at a cost of $20,000 a year. “The practice’s costs for this service were cut in half,” Ms. Deabler said.
 

What functions lend themselves to outsourcing?

Clinical services are rarely outsourced by individual practices – although hospitals now outsource numerous clinical services – but virtually any kind of administrative service can be contracted out. Outsourcing used to be limited mainly to billing and off-hours phone services, but today, more services are available, such as scribing, processing prior authorizations, accounting and bookkeeping, human resources (HR) and payroll, interactions with social media, recredentialing, medical transcription, and marketing.

Meanwhile, the original outsourced services have evolved. Billing and collections may now be handled by off-shore VAs, and phone services now deal with a wider variety of tasks, such as answering patients’ questions, scheduling appointments, and making referrals.

Ron Holder, chief operating officer of Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo., said that some outsourcing services can also adjust the amount of work provided based on the customer’s needs. “For instance, an IT outsourcer may allow you to scale up IT support for a new big tech project, such as installing a new electronic health record,” he said.

The outsourced service provider, who might work in another state or another country, is connected to the practice by phone and electronically, and represents the practice when dealing with patients, insurers, or other vendors.

“No one, including patients and your physicians, should know that they are dealing with an outsourced company,” said Mr. Holder. “The work, look, and feel of the outsourced functions should be seamless. Employees at the outsourcer should always identify themselves as the practice, not the outsourcing service.”

Dr. Hochman said that many outsourcing companies dedicate a particular worker to a particular practice and train them to work there. One example of this approach is Provider’s Choice Scribe Services, based in San Antonio. On its website, the company notes that each scribe is paired with a doctor and learns his or her documentation preferences, EMR use, and charting requirements.
 

What medical practices benefit most from outsourcing?

All kinds and sizes of practices contract with outsourcing firms, but the arrangement is particularly useful for smaller practices, Mr. Holder said. “Larger practices have the economies of scale that allow services to be in-house,” he said, “but smaller practices don’t have that opportunity.”

Dr. Hochman added that outsourcing firms can be hired part-time when the practice doesn’t have enough work for a full-time position. Alternatively, a full-time outsourcing firm can perform two or more separate tasks, such as scribing while handling prior authorizations, she said.

Outsourcing is also useful for new practices, Ms. Deabler said. “A new practice is not earning much money, so it has to have a bare-bones staff,” she said. “Billing, for example, should be contracted out, but it won’t cost that much, because the outsourcer typically charges by volume, and the volume in a new practice is low.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Holder said that the outsourcing of prior authorization work can particularly benefit specialty practices because they typically have a lot of prior authorizations to deal with.
 

The pros and cons of outsourcing

Experts with experience in outsourcing agree there are both pluses and minuses. “Practices with outsourced workers have less overhead, don’t have to deal with staff turnover, and costs may be lower than for in-house staff,” Ms. Deabler said. “However, you have limited control over outsourced workers and the practice may seem more anonymous to patients, so you need to consider this option very carefully.”

“With outsourcing, you lose control,” said John Machata, MD, a recently retired solo family physician in Wickford, R.I. “You’re trusting someone else to do work that you could do anyway.”

When he briefly considered outsourcing the practice’s billing many years ago, he found that billing companies wouldn’t handle bills that took a lot of work, such as getting in touch with the insurance company and explaining the patient’s situation. “They would only handle the easy bills, which the practice could do anyway,” he said.

However, he does think that answering services may be useful to outsource. “Patients are more inclined to call an anonymous entity than the doctor,” he said. When he gave patients his cell phone number, he said that some patients held off from calling because they didn’t want to bother him.

“Outsourced staff should be less expensive than in-house staff,” said Daniel Shay, an attorney at Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “On the other hand, you are liable for the outsourcer’s mistakes. If your outsourced billing company is upcoding claims, your practice would be on the hook for repayment and penalties.”

Mr. Holder said: “An outsourcer ought to be more efficient at its chosen task because that is what they know how to do. This is a plus at a small practice, where the practice manager may need to do the billing, HR, IT, marketing, some legal work, and accounting,” he said. “No one person can do all of those things well.”

He added, however, “If you choose outsourcing and then decide you don’t like it, it’s difficult to unwind the arrangement. Staff that have been dismissed can’t easily be hired back, so it shouldn’t be an easy decision to make.”

Also, sometimes the staff at offshore outsourcing firms may have accents that are harder for patients to understand, and the offshore staff may not readily understand a U.S. caller. However, Dr. Hochman said that practices often have a chance to interview and select specific persons on the offshore team who best fit their needs.
 

Offshore outsourcing

Outsourcing firms have been moving abroad, where costs are lower. Typical venues are India and the Philippines because there are larger percentages of people who speak English. Since 2020, demand at offshore medical billing companies has been growing faster than their domestic counterparts, according to a recent analysis.

The difference in price can be substantial. In 2020, the average salary for scribes in India was $500 a month, compared with $2,500 for scribes in the United States.

However, offshore outsourcing is starting to face limitations in some places because of privacy issues, according to David J. Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa. He pointed to a new Florida law that limits use of offshore vendors because they deal with confidential patient information. The law, which became effective July 1, requires that any protected health information must be maintained in the United States or Canada.

“This will make it very hard for many types of offshore vendors to operate in Florida,” he said. He noted that Florida is the only state with such a restriction, but similar proposals are under consideration in a few other states, such as Texas.
 

How to select the right company

Mr. Zetter said that the biggest mistake practices make when choosing a company is failing to take enough time to examine their choice. “Quite often, practices don’t validate that companies know what they are doing,” he said. “They get a recommendation and go with it.”

“Choose a company with experience in your specialty,” Mr. Zetter advised. “Speak with the company’s clients, not just the ones the company gives you to speak to. You should ask for the full list of clients and speak to all of them.”

Ms. Deabler said that it’s fairly easy to find respected outsourcing companies. “Colleagues can make recommendations, state and specialty societies can provide lists of preferred vendors, and you can visit vendors’ booths at medical conferences,” she said. She added that it’s also easy to find evaluations of each company. “You can Google the company and come up with all kinds of information about it,” she said.

Mr. Shay said that practices should make sure they understand the terms of the contract with a VA. “Depending on how the contract is worded, you may be stuck with the relationship for many years,” he said. “Before you sign an outsourcing contract, you need to make sure it has a reasonable termination provision.”

Because vetting companies properly can require extensive work, Ms. Deabler said, the work can be given to an experienced practice management consultant. “The consultant can start with a cost-benefit analysis that will show you whether outsourcing would be worthwhile,” she said.
 

Working with outsource service providers

Mr. Holder said that doctors should keep track of what the outsourcer is doing rather than simply let them do their work. “For example, doctors should understand the billing codes they use most often, such as the five levels of evaluation and management codes, and not just blindly rely on the billing company to code and bill their work correctly,” he noted.

Ms. Deabler said that companies provide monthly reports on their work. “Doctors should be reading these reports and contacting the company if expectations aren’t met,” she said.

Even in the reports, companies can hide problems from untrained eyes, Mr. Holder said. “For example, anyone can meet a metric like days in accounts receivable simply by writing off any charge that isn’t paid after 90 days.”

“You need to be engaged with the outsourcer,” he said. “It’s also a good idea to bring in a consultant to periodically check an outsourcer’s work.”
 

Will outsourcing expand in the future?

Mr. Holder said that the increasing use of value-based care may require practices to rely more on outsourcing in the future. “For instance, if a practice has a value-based contract that requires providing behavioral health services to patients, it might make sense to outsource that work rather than hire psychologists in-house,” he said.

Practices rarely outsource clinical services, but Mr. Holder said that this may happen in the future: “Now that Medicare is paying less for telehealth, practices have to find a way to provide it without using expensive examining room space,” he said. “Some practices may decide to outsource telehealth instead.”

Mr. Shay said that there are many reasons why outsourcing has a strong future. “It allows you to concentrate on your clinical care, and it is a solution to problems with turnover of in-house staff,” he said. “It can also be more efficient because the service is presumably an expert in areas like billing and collections, which means it may be able to ensure more efficient and faster reimbursements. And if the work is outsourced overseas, you can save money through lower worker salaries.”

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

Outsourcing certain staff functions in a practice to outside contractors working in remote locations has become commonplace in many medical practices.

Health care outsourcing services, also known as virtual assistants (VAs), were already booming in 2017, when volume grew by 36%. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 normalized off-site work, which was a boon to outsourcing providers.

The most popular services being outsourced today by medical practices include billing, scribes, telephone calls to patients, and processing prior authorizations.

“Outsourcing is not for everyone, but I’ve seen it work for many practices,” said Lara Hochman, MD, a practice management consultant in Austin, Tex. She said that practices have used outsourcing to solve problems like high staff turnover, tight budgets, and inefficient use of staff.

When in-house staffing is insufficient or not appropriately aligned with the task, outsourcing can produce big savings, said Teri Deabler, a practice management consultant with the Texas Medical Association.

For example, she said that a client was paying an in-house accountant $80,000 a year. When the accountant retired, she was replaced with a part-time bookkeeper earning $20,000 while her accounting work was outsourced at a cost of $20,000 a year. “The practice’s costs for this service were cut in half,” Ms. Deabler said.
 

What functions lend themselves to outsourcing?

Clinical services are rarely outsourced by individual practices – although hospitals now outsource numerous clinical services – but virtually any kind of administrative service can be contracted out. Outsourcing used to be limited mainly to billing and off-hours phone services, but today, more services are available, such as scribing, processing prior authorizations, accounting and bookkeeping, human resources (HR) and payroll, interactions with social media, recredentialing, medical transcription, and marketing.

Meanwhile, the original outsourced services have evolved. Billing and collections may now be handled by off-shore VAs, and phone services now deal with a wider variety of tasks, such as answering patients’ questions, scheduling appointments, and making referrals.

Ron Holder, chief operating officer of Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo., said that some outsourcing services can also adjust the amount of work provided based on the customer’s needs. “For instance, an IT outsourcer may allow you to scale up IT support for a new big tech project, such as installing a new electronic health record,” he said.

The outsourced service provider, who might work in another state or another country, is connected to the practice by phone and electronically, and represents the practice when dealing with patients, insurers, or other vendors.

“No one, including patients and your physicians, should know that they are dealing with an outsourced company,” said Mr. Holder. “The work, look, and feel of the outsourced functions should be seamless. Employees at the outsourcer should always identify themselves as the practice, not the outsourcing service.”

Dr. Hochman said that many outsourcing companies dedicate a particular worker to a particular practice and train them to work there. One example of this approach is Provider’s Choice Scribe Services, based in San Antonio. On its website, the company notes that each scribe is paired with a doctor and learns his or her documentation preferences, EMR use, and charting requirements.
 

What medical practices benefit most from outsourcing?

All kinds and sizes of practices contract with outsourcing firms, but the arrangement is particularly useful for smaller practices, Mr. Holder said. “Larger practices have the economies of scale that allow services to be in-house,” he said, “but smaller practices don’t have that opportunity.”

Dr. Hochman added that outsourcing firms can be hired part-time when the practice doesn’t have enough work for a full-time position. Alternatively, a full-time outsourcing firm can perform two or more separate tasks, such as scribing while handling prior authorizations, she said.

Outsourcing is also useful for new practices, Ms. Deabler said. “A new practice is not earning much money, so it has to have a bare-bones staff,” she said. “Billing, for example, should be contracted out, but it won’t cost that much, because the outsourcer typically charges by volume, and the volume in a new practice is low.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Holder said that the outsourcing of prior authorization work can particularly benefit specialty practices because they typically have a lot of prior authorizations to deal with.
 

The pros and cons of outsourcing

Experts with experience in outsourcing agree there are both pluses and minuses. “Practices with outsourced workers have less overhead, don’t have to deal with staff turnover, and costs may be lower than for in-house staff,” Ms. Deabler said. “However, you have limited control over outsourced workers and the practice may seem more anonymous to patients, so you need to consider this option very carefully.”

“With outsourcing, you lose control,” said John Machata, MD, a recently retired solo family physician in Wickford, R.I. “You’re trusting someone else to do work that you could do anyway.”

When he briefly considered outsourcing the practice’s billing many years ago, he found that billing companies wouldn’t handle bills that took a lot of work, such as getting in touch with the insurance company and explaining the patient’s situation. “They would only handle the easy bills, which the practice could do anyway,” he said.

However, he does think that answering services may be useful to outsource. “Patients are more inclined to call an anonymous entity than the doctor,” he said. When he gave patients his cell phone number, he said that some patients held off from calling because they didn’t want to bother him.

“Outsourced staff should be less expensive than in-house staff,” said Daniel Shay, an attorney at Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “On the other hand, you are liable for the outsourcer’s mistakes. If your outsourced billing company is upcoding claims, your practice would be on the hook for repayment and penalties.”

Mr. Holder said: “An outsourcer ought to be more efficient at its chosen task because that is what they know how to do. This is a plus at a small practice, where the practice manager may need to do the billing, HR, IT, marketing, some legal work, and accounting,” he said. “No one person can do all of those things well.”

He added, however, “If you choose outsourcing and then decide you don’t like it, it’s difficult to unwind the arrangement. Staff that have been dismissed can’t easily be hired back, so it shouldn’t be an easy decision to make.”

Also, sometimes the staff at offshore outsourcing firms may have accents that are harder for patients to understand, and the offshore staff may not readily understand a U.S. caller. However, Dr. Hochman said that practices often have a chance to interview and select specific persons on the offshore team who best fit their needs.
 

Offshore outsourcing

Outsourcing firms have been moving abroad, where costs are lower. Typical venues are India and the Philippines because there are larger percentages of people who speak English. Since 2020, demand at offshore medical billing companies has been growing faster than their domestic counterparts, according to a recent analysis.

The difference in price can be substantial. In 2020, the average salary for scribes in India was $500 a month, compared with $2,500 for scribes in the United States.

However, offshore outsourcing is starting to face limitations in some places because of privacy issues, according to David J. Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa. He pointed to a new Florida law that limits use of offshore vendors because they deal with confidential patient information. The law, which became effective July 1, requires that any protected health information must be maintained in the United States or Canada.

“This will make it very hard for many types of offshore vendors to operate in Florida,” he said. He noted that Florida is the only state with such a restriction, but similar proposals are under consideration in a few other states, such as Texas.
 

How to select the right company

Mr. Zetter said that the biggest mistake practices make when choosing a company is failing to take enough time to examine their choice. “Quite often, practices don’t validate that companies know what they are doing,” he said. “They get a recommendation and go with it.”

“Choose a company with experience in your specialty,” Mr. Zetter advised. “Speak with the company’s clients, not just the ones the company gives you to speak to. You should ask for the full list of clients and speak to all of them.”

Ms. Deabler said that it’s fairly easy to find respected outsourcing companies. “Colleagues can make recommendations, state and specialty societies can provide lists of preferred vendors, and you can visit vendors’ booths at medical conferences,” she said. She added that it’s also easy to find evaluations of each company. “You can Google the company and come up with all kinds of information about it,” she said.

Mr. Shay said that practices should make sure they understand the terms of the contract with a VA. “Depending on how the contract is worded, you may be stuck with the relationship for many years,” he said. “Before you sign an outsourcing contract, you need to make sure it has a reasonable termination provision.”

Because vetting companies properly can require extensive work, Ms. Deabler said, the work can be given to an experienced practice management consultant. “The consultant can start with a cost-benefit analysis that will show you whether outsourcing would be worthwhile,” she said.
 

Working with outsource service providers

Mr. Holder said that doctors should keep track of what the outsourcer is doing rather than simply let them do their work. “For example, doctors should understand the billing codes they use most often, such as the five levels of evaluation and management codes, and not just blindly rely on the billing company to code and bill their work correctly,” he noted.

Ms. Deabler said that companies provide monthly reports on their work. “Doctors should be reading these reports and contacting the company if expectations aren’t met,” she said.

Even in the reports, companies can hide problems from untrained eyes, Mr. Holder said. “For example, anyone can meet a metric like days in accounts receivable simply by writing off any charge that isn’t paid after 90 days.”

“You need to be engaged with the outsourcer,” he said. “It’s also a good idea to bring in a consultant to periodically check an outsourcer’s work.”
 

Will outsourcing expand in the future?

Mr. Holder said that the increasing use of value-based care may require practices to rely more on outsourcing in the future. “For instance, if a practice has a value-based contract that requires providing behavioral health services to patients, it might make sense to outsource that work rather than hire psychologists in-house,” he said.

Practices rarely outsource clinical services, but Mr. Holder said that this may happen in the future: “Now that Medicare is paying less for telehealth, practices have to find a way to provide it without using expensive examining room space,” he said. “Some practices may decide to outsource telehealth instead.”

Mr. Shay said that there are many reasons why outsourcing has a strong future. “It allows you to concentrate on your clinical care, and it is a solution to problems with turnover of in-house staff,” he said. “It can also be more efficient because the service is presumably an expert in areas like billing and collections, which means it may be able to ensure more efficient and faster reimbursements. And if the work is outsourced overseas, you can save money through lower worker salaries.”

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

Outsourcing certain staff functions in a practice to outside contractors working in remote locations has become commonplace in many medical practices.

Health care outsourcing services, also known as virtual assistants (VAs), were already booming in 2017, when volume grew by 36%. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 normalized off-site work, which was a boon to outsourcing providers.

The most popular services being outsourced today by medical practices include billing, scribes, telephone calls to patients, and processing prior authorizations.

“Outsourcing is not for everyone, but I’ve seen it work for many practices,” said Lara Hochman, MD, a practice management consultant in Austin, Tex. She said that practices have used outsourcing to solve problems like high staff turnover, tight budgets, and inefficient use of staff.

When in-house staffing is insufficient or not appropriately aligned with the task, outsourcing can produce big savings, said Teri Deabler, a practice management consultant with the Texas Medical Association.

For example, she said that a client was paying an in-house accountant $80,000 a year. When the accountant retired, she was replaced with a part-time bookkeeper earning $20,000 while her accounting work was outsourced at a cost of $20,000 a year. “The practice’s costs for this service were cut in half,” Ms. Deabler said.
 

What functions lend themselves to outsourcing?

Clinical services are rarely outsourced by individual practices – although hospitals now outsource numerous clinical services – but virtually any kind of administrative service can be contracted out. Outsourcing used to be limited mainly to billing and off-hours phone services, but today, more services are available, such as scribing, processing prior authorizations, accounting and bookkeeping, human resources (HR) and payroll, interactions with social media, recredentialing, medical transcription, and marketing.

Meanwhile, the original outsourced services have evolved. Billing and collections may now be handled by off-shore VAs, and phone services now deal with a wider variety of tasks, such as answering patients’ questions, scheduling appointments, and making referrals.

Ron Holder, chief operating officer of Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo., said that some outsourcing services can also adjust the amount of work provided based on the customer’s needs. “For instance, an IT outsourcer may allow you to scale up IT support for a new big tech project, such as installing a new electronic health record,” he said.

The outsourced service provider, who might work in another state or another country, is connected to the practice by phone and electronically, and represents the practice when dealing with patients, insurers, or other vendors.

“No one, including patients and your physicians, should know that they are dealing with an outsourced company,” said Mr. Holder. “The work, look, and feel of the outsourced functions should be seamless. Employees at the outsourcer should always identify themselves as the practice, not the outsourcing service.”

Dr. Hochman said that many outsourcing companies dedicate a particular worker to a particular practice and train them to work there. One example of this approach is Provider’s Choice Scribe Services, based in San Antonio. On its website, the company notes that each scribe is paired with a doctor and learns his or her documentation preferences, EMR use, and charting requirements.
 

What medical practices benefit most from outsourcing?

All kinds and sizes of practices contract with outsourcing firms, but the arrangement is particularly useful for smaller practices, Mr. Holder said. “Larger practices have the economies of scale that allow services to be in-house,” he said, “but smaller practices don’t have that opportunity.”

Dr. Hochman added that outsourcing firms can be hired part-time when the practice doesn’t have enough work for a full-time position. Alternatively, a full-time outsourcing firm can perform two or more separate tasks, such as scribing while handling prior authorizations, she said.

Outsourcing is also useful for new practices, Ms. Deabler said. “A new practice is not earning much money, so it has to have a bare-bones staff,” she said. “Billing, for example, should be contracted out, but it won’t cost that much, because the outsourcer typically charges by volume, and the volume in a new practice is low.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Holder said that the outsourcing of prior authorization work can particularly benefit specialty practices because they typically have a lot of prior authorizations to deal with.
 

The pros and cons of outsourcing

Experts with experience in outsourcing agree there are both pluses and minuses. “Practices with outsourced workers have less overhead, don’t have to deal with staff turnover, and costs may be lower than for in-house staff,” Ms. Deabler said. “However, you have limited control over outsourced workers and the practice may seem more anonymous to patients, so you need to consider this option very carefully.”

“With outsourcing, you lose control,” said John Machata, MD, a recently retired solo family physician in Wickford, R.I. “You’re trusting someone else to do work that you could do anyway.”

When he briefly considered outsourcing the practice’s billing many years ago, he found that billing companies wouldn’t handle bills that took a lot of work, such as getting in touch with the insurance company and explaining the patient’s situation. “They would only handle the easy bills, which the practice could do anyway,” he said.

However, he does think that answering services may be useful to outsource. “Patients are more inclined to call an anonymous entity than the doctor,” he said. When he gave patients his cell phone number, he said that some patients held off from calling because they didn’t want to bother him.

“Outsourced staff should be less expensive than in-house staff,” said Daniel Shay, an attorney at Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “On the other hand, you are liable for the outsourcer’s mistakes. If your outsourced billing company is upcoding claims, your practice would be on the hook for repayment and penalties.”

Mr. Holder said: “An outsourcer ought to be more efficient at its chosen task because that is what they know how to do. This is a plus at a small practice, where the practice manager may need to do the billing, HR, IT, marketing, some legal work, and accounting,” he said. “No one person can do all of those things well.”

He added, however, “If you choose outsourcing and then decide you don’t like it, it’s difficult to unwind the arrangement. Staff that have been dismissed can’t easily be hired back, so it shouldn’t be an easy decision to make.”

Also, sometimes the staff at offshore outsourcing firms may have accents that are harder for patients to understand, and the offshore staff may not readily understand a U.S. caller. However, Dr. Hochman said that practices often have a chance to interview and select specific persons on the offshore team who best fit their needs.
 

Offshore outsourcing

Outsourcing firms have been moving abroad, where costs are lower. Typical venues are India and the Philippines because there are larger percentages of people who speak English. Since 2020, demand at offshore medical billing companies has been growing faster than their domestic counterparts, according to a recent analysis.

The difference in price can be substantial. In 2020, the average salary for scribes in India was $500 a month, compared with $2,500 for scribes in the United States.

However, offshore outsourcing is starting to face limitations in some places because of privacy issues, according to David J. Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa. He pointed to a new Florida law that limits use of offshore vendors because they deal with confidential patient information. The law, which became effective July 1, requires that any protected health information must be maintained in the United States or Canada.

“This will make it very hard for many types of offshore vendors to operate in Florida,” he said. He noted that Florida is the only state with such a restriction, but similar proposals are under consideration in a few other states, such as Texas.
 

How to select the right company

Mr. Zetter said that the biggest mistake practices make when choosing a company is failing to take enough time to examine their choice. “Quite often, practices don’t validate that companies know what they are doing,” he said. “They get a recommendation and go with it.”

“Choose a company with experience in your specialty,” Mr. Zetter advised. “Speak with the company’s clients, not just the ones the company gives you to speak to. You should ask for the full list of clients and speak to all of them.”

Ms. Deabler said that it’s fairly easy to find respected outsourcing companies. “Colleagues can make recommendations, state and specialty societies can provide lists of preferred vendors, and you can visit vendors’ booths at medical conferences,” she said. She added that it’s also easy to find evaluations of each company. “You can Google the company and come up with all kinds of information about it,” she said.

Mr. Shay said that practices should make sure they understand the terms of the contract with a VA. “Depending on how the contract is worded, you may be stuck with the relationship for many years,” he said. “Before you sign an outsourcing contract, you need to make sure it has a reasonable termination provision.”

Because vetting companies properly can require extensive work, Ms. Deabler said, the work can be given to an experienced practice management consultant. “The consultant can start with a cost-benefit analysis that will show you whether outsourcing would be worthwhile,” she said.
 

Working with outsource service providers

Mr. Holder said that doctors should keep track of what the outsourcer is doing rather than simply let them do their work. “For example, doctors should understand the billing codes they use most often, such as the five levels of evaluation and management codes, and not just blindly rely on the billing company to code and bill their work correctly,” he noted.

Ms. Deabler said that companies provide monthly reports on their work. “Doctors should be reading these reports and contacting the company if expectations aren’t met,” she said.

Even in the reports, companies can hide problems from untrained eyes, Mr. Holder said. “For example, anyone can meet a metric like days in accounts receivable simply by writing off any charge that isn’t paid after 90 days.”

“You need to be engaged with the outsourcer,” he said. “It’s also a good idea to bring in a consultant to periodically check an outsourcer’s work.”
 

Will outsourcing expand in the future?

Mr. Holder said that the increasing use of value-based care may require practices to rely more on outsourcing in the future. “For instance, if a practice has a value-based contract that requires providing behavioral health services to patients, it might make sense to outsource that work rather than hire psychologists in-house,” he said.

Practices rarely outsource clinical services, but Mr. Holder said that this may happen in the future: “Now that Medicare is paying less for telehealth, practices have to find a way to provide it without using expensive examining room space,” he said. “Some practices may decide to outsource telehealth instead.”

Mr. Shay said that there are many reasons why outsourcing has a strong future. “It allows you to concentrate on your clinical care, and it is a solution to problems with turnover of in-house staff,” he said. “It can also be more efficient because the service is presumably an expert in areas like billing and collections, which means it may be able to ensure more efficient and faster reimbursements. And if the work is outsourced overseas, you can save money through lower worker salaries.”

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