MDedge Dermatology

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: Risk factors affecting oral Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment were prevalent among adult patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), especially older individuals, thus necessitating careful risk assessment among patients before JAKi therapy initiation.

Major finding: Nearly half (49.5%) of the patients with AD at some point had at least one risk factor that could affect JAKi treatment and most (60.3%) patients age ≥ 65 years had at least three risk factors. The recorded non-modifiable risk factors included cancer (5.6%), smoking history (15.6%), age ≥ 65 years (12.4%), and major adverse cardiovascular events (2.6%).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included adult patients with AD from the Danish national registers (n = 18,618) and Danish Skin Cohort (n = 3573).

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the source of funding. Several authors declared receiving research support, lecture honoraria, or consulting honoraria from or serving as speakers or advisory board members for various organizations.

Source: Vittrup I, Thein D, Thomsen SF, Egeberg A, Thyssen JP. Risk factors that impact treatment with oral Janus kinase inhibitors among adult patients with atopic dermatitis: A nationwide registry study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024 (Jan 22). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v104.18638 Source

Key clinical point: Risk factors affecting oral Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment were prevalent among adult patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), especially older individuals, thus necessitating careful risk assessment among patients before JAKi therapy initiation.

Major finding: Nearly half (49.5%) of the patients with AD at some point had at least one risk factor that could affect JAKi treatment and most (60.3%) patients age ≥ 65 years had at least three risk factors. The recorded non-modifiable risk factors included cancer (5.6%), smoking history (15.6%), age ≥ 65 years (12.4%), and major adverse cardiovascular events (2.6%).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included adult patients with AD from the Danish national registers (n = 18,618) and Danish Skin Cohort (n = 3573).

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the source of funding. Several authors declared receiving research support, lecture honoraria, or consulting honoraria from or serving as speakers or advisory board members for various organizations.

Source: Vittrup I, Thein D, Thomsen SF, Egeberg A, Thyssen JP. Risk factors that impact treatment with oral Janus kinase inhibitors among adult patients with atopic dermatitis: A nationwide registry study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024 (Jan 22). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v104.18638 Source

Key clinical point: Risk factors affecting oral Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment were prevalent among adult patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), especially older individuals, thus necessitating careful risk assessment among patients before JAKi therapy initiation.

Major finding: Nearly half (49.5%) of the patients with AD at some point had at least one risk factor that could affect JAKi treatment and most (60.3%) patients age ≥ 65 years had at least three risk factors. The recorded non-modifiable risk factors included cancer (5.6%), smoking history (15.6%), age ≥ 65 years (12.4%), and major adverse cardiovascular events (2.6%).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included adult patients with AD from the Danish national registers (n = 18,618) and Danish Skin Cohort (n = 3573).

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the source of funding. Several authors declared receiving research support, lecture honoraria, or consulting honoraria from or serving as speakers or advisory board members for various organizations.

Source: Vittrup I, Thein D, Thomsen SF, Egeberg A, Thyssen JP. Risk factors that impact treatment with oral Janus kinase inhibitors among adult patients with atopic dermatitis: A nationwide registry study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024 (Jan 22). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v104.18638 Source

Key clinical point: Pathogenic filaggrin (FLG) variants do not affect the effectiveness of dupilumab treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: No clinically relevant differences were observed in the Eczema Area and Severity Index, Investigator Global Assessment, Numeric Rating Scale for pruritus, and total Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores between patients with and without pathogenic FLG variants at week 16 or 52. However, patients with bi-allelic pathogenic variants vs wild-type alleles had significantly higher POEM dryness scores at week 16 (P = .002) and week 52 (P = .016).

Study details: This prospective observational study included 285 adult patients with AD from the Dutch BioDay Registry who had received dupilumab for 16 weeks or more and underwent genomic variant analysis for FLG.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared being consultants, advisory board members, or speakers for or having other ties with various organizations.

Source: Clabbers J, Boesjes C, Spekhorst L, et al. Influence of pathogenic filaggrin variants on dupilumab treatment in atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024 (Jan 22). doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.12.027 Source

Key clinical point: Pathogenic filaggrin (FLG) variants do not affect the effectiveness of dupilumab treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: No clinically relevant differences were observed in the Eczema Area and Severity Index, Investigator Global Assessment, Numeric Rating Scale for pruritus, and total Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores between patients with and without pathogenic FLG variants at week 16 or 52. However, patients with bi-allelic pathogenic variants vs wild-type alleles had significantly higher POEM dryness scores at week 16 (P = .002) and week 52 (P = .016).

Study details: This prospective observational study included 285 adult patients with AD from the Dutch BioDay Registry who had received dupilumab for 16 weeks or more and underwent genomic variant analysis for FLG.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared being consultants, advisory board members, or speakers for or having other ties with various organizations.

Source: Clabbers J, Boesjes C, Spekhorst L, et al. Influence of pathogenic filaggrin variants on dupilumab treatment in atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024 (Jan 22). doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.12.027 Source

Key clinical point: Pathogenic filaggrin (FLG) variants do not affect the effectiveness of dupilumab treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: No clinically relevant differences were observed in the Eczema Area and Severity Index, Investigator Global Assessment, Numeric Rating Scale for pruritus, and total Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores between patients with and without pathogenic FLG variants at week 16 or 52. However, patients with bi-allelic pathogenic variants vs wild-type alleles had significantly higher POEM dryness scores at week 16 (P = .002) and week 52 (P = .016).

Study details: This prospective observational study included 285 adult patients with AD from the Dutch BioDay Registry who had received dupilumab for 16 weeks or more and underwent genomic variant analysis for FLG.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared being consultants, advisory board members, or speakers for or having other ties with various organizations.

Source: Clabbers J, Boesjes C, Spekhorst L, et al. Influence of pathogenic filaggrin variants on dupilumab treatment in atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024 (Jan 22). doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.12.027 Source

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib resulted in a good survival rate and was effective in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) after over a year of continuous treatment, with no single characteristic of the study population being significantly associated with drug discontinuation.

Major finding: The drug survival rates at 1 and 1.5 years were 91.5% and 80.2%, respectively. The main reasons for discontinuation, occurring in 7.7% of patients, were adverse effects and ineffectiveness. However, no specific patient characteristics, such as sex or age at AD onset, showed a significant association with drug discontinuation.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study included 325 adult patients with moderate to severe AD who were treated with upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and up to 72 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pezzolo E, Ortoncelli M, Ferrucci SM, et al. Drug survival of upadacitinib and predicting factors of discontinuation in adult patients affected by moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: An Italian multicenter analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13:553 (Jan 18). doi: 10.3390/jcm13020553 Source

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib resulted in a good survival rate and was effective in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) after over a year of continuous treatment, with no single characteristic of the study population being significantly associated with drug discontinuation.

Major finding: The drug survival rates at 1 and 1.5 years were 91.5% and 80.2%, respectively. The main reasons for discontinuation, occurring in 7.7% of patients, were adverse effects and ineffectiveness. However, no specific patient characteristics, such as sex or age at AD onset, showed a significant association with drug discontinuation.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study included 325 adult patients with moderate to severe AD who were treated with upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and up to 72 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pezzolo E, Ortoncelli M, Ferrucci SM, et al. Drug survival of upadacitinib and predicting factors of discontinuation in adult patients affected by moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: An Italian multicenter analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13:553 (Jan 18). doi: 10.3390/jcm13020553 Source

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib resulted in a good survival rate and was effective in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) after over a year of continuous treatment, with no single characteristic of the study population being significantly associated with drug discontinuation.

Major finding: The drug survival rates at 1 and 1.5 years were 91.5% and 80.2%, respectively. The main reasons for discontinuation, occurring in 7.7% of patients, were adverse effects and ineffectiveness. However, no specific patient characteristics, such as sex or age at AD onset, showed a significant association with drug discontinuation.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study included 325 adult patients with moderate to severe AD who were treated with upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and up to 72 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pezzolo E, Ortoncelli M, Ferrucci SM, et al. Drug survival of upadacitinib and predicting factors of discontinuation in adult patients affected by moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: An Italian multicenter analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13:553 (Jan 18). doi: 10.3390/jcm13020553 Source

Key clinical point: In infants and young children with atopic dermatitis (AD), dupilumab treatment with concomitant low-potency topical corticosteroids (TCS) does not increase infection rates and is associated with a reduced risk for bacterial and non-herpetic skin infections.

Major finding: Patients receiving dupilumab vs placebo had similar total infection rates week 16 (rate ratio [RR] 0.75; P = .223) and a significantly lower frequency of non-herpetic skin infections (RR 0.46; P = .047) and bacterial infections (RR 0.09; P = .019).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL trial included 162 patients (age 6 months to 5 years) with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 200 or 300 mg dupilumab (n = 83) or placebo (n = 79) every 4 weeks with concomitant low-potency TCS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Four authors declared being employees or shareholders of Sanofi or Regeneron. The remaining authors declared having ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, or others.

Source: Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Cork MJ, et al. Infections in children aged 6 months to 5 years treated with dupilumab in a placebo-controlled clinical trial of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Paediatr Drugs. 2024 (Jan 24). doi: 10.1007/s40272-023-00611-9 Source

Key clinical point: In infants and young children with atopic dermatitis (AD), dupilumab treatment with concomitant low-potency topical corticosteroids (TCS) does not increase infection rates and is associated with a reduced risk for bacterial and non-herpetic skin infections.

Major finding: Patients receiving dupilumab vs placebo had similar total infection rates week 16 (rate ratio [RR] 0.75; P = .223) and a significantly lower frequency of non-herpetic skin infections (RR 0.46; P = .047) and bacterial infections (RR 0.09; P = .019).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL trial included 162 patients (age 6 months to 5 years) with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 200 or 300 mg dupilumab (n = 83) or placebo (n = 79) every 4 weeks with concomitant low-potency TCS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Four authors declared being employees or shareholders of Sanofi or Regeneron. The remaining authors declared having ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, or others.

Source: Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Cork MJ, et al. Infections in children aged 6 months to 5 years treated with dupilumab in a placebo-controlled clinical trial of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Paediatr Drugs. 2024 (Jan 24). doi: 10.1007/s40272-023-00611-9 Source

Key clinical point: In infants and young children with atopic dermatitis (AD), dupilumab treatment with concomitant low-potency topical corticosteroids (TCS) does not increase infection rates and is associated with a reduced risk for bacterial and non-herpetic skin infections.

Major finding: Patients receiving dupilumab vs placebo had similar total infection rates week 16 (rate ratio [RR] 0.75; P = .223) and a significantly lower frequency of non-herpetic skin infections (RR 0.46; P = .047) and bacterial infections (RR 0.09; P = .019).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL trial included 162 patients (age 6 months to 5 years) with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 200 or 300 mg dupilumab (n = 83) or placebo (n = 79) every 4 weeks with concomitant low-potency TCS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Four authors declared being employees or shareholders of Sanofi or Regeneron. The remaining authors declared having ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, or others.

Source: Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Cork MJ, et al. Infections in children aged 6 months to 5 years treated with dupilumab in a placebo-controlled clinical trial of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Paediatr Drugs. 2024 (Jan 24). doi: 10.1007/s40272-023-00611-9 Source

Key clinical point: Dose reduction of 300 mg dupilumab was successfully achieved by dose spacing to >2 weeks without loss of efficacy in most patients with persistently controlled atopic dermatitis (AD), regardless of previous exposure to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 10 months, dose spacing of 300 mg dupilumab without loss in efficacy was achieved in 35 of 37 patients with controlled AD receiving dupilumab treatment for a median duration of 20.1 months. Similar findings were observed in patients with vs without previous exposure to biologics or JAKi (P > .05).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 37 patients with controlled AD for more than a year, who were treated with 300 mg dupilumab at intervals > 2 weeks, and of whom 7 patients were classified as non-naive to biologics and JAKi.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lasheras-Pérez MA, Palacios-Diaz RD, González-Delgado VA, et al. Dose tapering of dupilumab in patients with persistently controlled atopic dermatitis: A Spanish multicenter cohort study. Int J Dermatol. 2024 (Jan 16). doi: 10.1111/ijd.17030  Source

Key clinical point: Dose reduction of 300 mg dupilumab was successfully achieved by dose spacing to >2 weeks without loss of efficacy in most patients with persistently controlled atopic dermatitis (AD), regardless of previous exposure to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 10 months, dose spacing of 300 mg dupilumab without loss in efficacy was achieved in 35 of 37 patients with controlled AD receiving dupilumab treatment for a median duration of 20.1 months. Similar findings were observed in patients with vs without previous exposure to biologics or JAKi (P > .05).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 37 patients with controlled AD for more than a year, who were treated with 300 mg dupilumab at intervals > 2 weeks, and of whom 7 patients were classified as non-naive to biologics and JAKi.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lasheras-Pérez MA, Palacios-Diaz RD, González-Delgado VA, et al. Dose tapering of dupilumab in patients with persistently controlled atopic dermatitis: A Spanish multicenter cohort study. Int J Dermatol. 2024 (Jan 16). doi: 10.1111/ijd.17030  Source

Key clinical point: Dose reduction of 300 mg dupilumab was successfully achieved by dose spacing to >2 weeks without loss of efficacy in most patients with persistently controlled atopic dermatitis (AD), regardless of previous exposure to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 10 months, dose spacing of 300 mg dupilumab without loss in efficacy was achieved in 35 of 37 patients with controlled AD receiving dupilumab treatment for a median duration of 20.1 months. Similar findings were observed in patients with vs without previous exposure to biologics or JAKi (P > .05).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 37 patients with controlled AD for more than a year, who were treated with 300 mg dupilumab at intervals > 2 weeks, and of whom 7 patients were classified as non-naive to biologics and JAKi.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lasheras-Pérez MA, Palacios-Diaz RD, González-Delgado VA, et al. Dose tapering of dupilumab in patients with persistently controlled atopic dermatitis: A Spanish multicenter cohort study. Int J Dermatol. 2024 (Jan 16). doi: 10.1111/ijd.17030  Source

Key clinical point: In real-world settings, dupilumab is safe and leads to significant and sustained improvements in the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, including those with malignancies and other comorbidities.

Major finding: At week 52, 64% of patients showed a decrease in disease severity, achieving a Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 compared with a score of 3 or 4 at baseline. No adverse effect on current malignancy or recurrence of prior malignancy was reported with dupilumab use.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study analyzed the data of 155 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD, including those with other significant comorbidities like malignancies, who were treated with dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Mohannad Abu-Hilal declared serving as an advisor, consultant, or speaker for or receiving grants or honoraria from various sources.

Source: Metko D, Alkofide M, Abu-Hilal M. A real-world study of dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis including patients with malignancy and other medical comorbidities. JAAD Int. 2024;15:5-11 (Jan 15). doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2024.01.002  Source

Key clinical point: In real-world settings, dupilumab is safe and leads to significant and sustained improvements in the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, including those with malignancies and other comorbidities.

Major finding: At week 52, 64% of patients showed a decrease in disease severity, achieving a Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 compared with a score of 3 or 4 at baseline. No adverse effect on current malignancy or recurrence of prior malignancy was reported with dupilumab use.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study analyzed the data of 155 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD, including those with other significant comorbidities like malignancies, who were treated with dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Mohannad Abu-Hilal declared serving as an advisor, consultant, or speaker for or receiving grants or honoraria from various sources.

Source: Metko D, Alkofide M, Abu-Hilal M. A real-world study of dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis including patients with malignancy and other medical comorbidities. JAAD Int. 2024;15:5-11 (Jan 15). doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2024.01.002  Source

Key clinical point: In real-world settings, dupilumab is safe and leads to significant and sustained improvements in the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, including those with malignancies and other comorbidities.

Major finding: At week 52, 64% of patients showed a decrease in disease severity, achieving a Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 compared with a score of 3 or 4 at baseline. No adverse effect on current malignancy or recurrence of prior malignancy was reported with dupilumab use.

Study details: This real-world retrospective study analyzed the data of 155 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD, including those with other significant comorbidities like malignancies, who were treated with dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Mohannad Abu-Hilal declared serving as an advisor, consultant, or speaker for or receiving grants or honoraria from various sources.

Source: Metko D, Alkofide M, Abu-Hilal M. A real-world study of dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis including patients with malignancy and other medical comorbidities. JAAD Int. 2024;15:5-11 (Jan 15). doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2024.01.002  Source

Key clinical point: Skin care by washing with water alone is not inferior to washing with a cleanser for the maintenance of remission in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) during the summer.

Major finding: The mean modified Eczema Area and Severity Index scores at 8 ± 4 weeks were similar in children who washed their upper and lower limbs with water and those who used a cleanser (0.00 and 0.15, respectively; P = .74). No difference was observed in the occurrence of skin infection, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, and other secondary outcomes with water vs cleanser use (all P > .05).

Study details: This noninferiority study included 43 children (age < 15 years) with AD having controlled eczema following regular steroid ointment application, who washed the randomly assigned left or right limb with a cleanser and the other limb with water alone.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Maruho Scholarship Donations Support Program, Japan. Osamu Natsume declared receiving grants from several sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katoh Y, Natsume O, Yasuoka R, et al. Skin care by washing with water is not inferior to washing with a cleanser in children with atopic dermatitis in remission in summer: WASH study. Allergol Int. 2024 (Feb 2). doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2024.01.007 Source

Key clinical point: Skin care by washing with water alone is not inferior to washing with a cleanser for the maintenance of remission in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) during the summer.

Major finding: The mean modified Eczema Area and Severity Index scores at 8 ± 4 weeks were similar in children who washed their upper and lower limbs with water and those who used a cleanser (0.00 and 0.15, respectively; P = .74). No difference was observed in the occurrence of skin infection, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, and other secondary outcomes with water vs cleanser use (all P > .05).

Study details: This noninferiority study included 43 children (age < 15 years) with AD having controlled eczema following regular steroid ointment application, who washed the randomly assigned left or right limb with a cleanser and the other limb with water alone.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Maruho Scholarship Donations Support Program, Japan. Osamu Natsume declared receiving grants from several sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katoh Y, Natsume O, Yasuoka R, et al. Skin care by washing with water is not inferior to washing with a cleanser in children with atopic dermatitis in remission in summer: WASH study. Allergol Int. 2024 (Feb 2). doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2024.01.007 Source

Key clinical point: Skin care by washing with water alone is not inferior to washing with a cleanser for the maintenance of remission in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) during the summer.

Major finding: The mean modified Eczema Area and Severity Index scores at 8 ± 4 weeks were similar in children who washed their upper and lower limbs with water and those who used a cleanser (0.00 and 0.15, respectively; P = .74). No difference was observed in the occurrence of skin infection, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, and other secondary outcomes with water vs cleanser use (all P > .05).

Study details: This noninferiority study included 43 children (age < 15 years) with AD having controlled eczema following regular steroid ointment application, who washed the randomly assigned left or right limb with a cleanser and the other limb with water alone.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Maruho Scholarship Donations Support Program, Japan. Osamu Natsume declared receiving grants from several sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katoh Y, Natsume O, Yasuoka R, et al. Skin care by washing with water is not inferior to washing with a cleanser in children with atopic dermatitis in remission in summer: WASH study. Allergol Int. 2024 (Feb 2). doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2024.01.007 Source