The atopic dermatitis (AD) therapeutic landscape is changing considerably with the advent of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Several JAK inhibitors recently have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, building off years of foundational research aimed at elucidating the downstream effects of the JAK–signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway and its role in AD pathogenesis. Agents within this promising new class of drugs have performed well vs placebo in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. This article reviews relevant trial efficacy and safety data of several JAK inhibitors as well as the implications of the use of these medications in AD patients, with specific considerations unique to active-duty military personnel.

Background on JAK Inhibitors

The hematopoietin superfamily of cytokine receptors encompasses a broad group that includes receptors for immune (eg, IL-2, IL-4, IFN-γ), hematopoietic (eg, erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor), and nonimmune (eg, prolactin, leptin, growth hormone) cytokines. These cytokines signal via the JAK-STAT pathway. The hematopoietin family of cytokine receptors lacks intrinsic enzymatic activity, and as a result, they rely on JAK enzymes to transmit their signals intracellularly after cytokine binding to the receptor.¹ Janus, of Roman mythology, was the god of doorways and archways and was commonly depicted with 2 heads. Janus kinases were named for their 2 “faces,” the kinase domain with its adjacent regulatory kinaselike domains.² The binding of a cytokine to its receptor triggers engagement of the receptor by JAKs, leading to phosphorylation of both the JAKs and the receptor. Subsequent recruitment and phosphorylation of STAT proteins occurs. Following STAT phosphorylation, the STAT proteins dissociate, dimerize, and translocate to the nucleus, where they enact changes in cell behavior through transcriptional effects.¹

Humans possess only 4 JAKs. Janus kinase 1, JAK2, and tyrosine kinase 2 are widely expressed, whereas JAK3 expression is largely limited to immune cells. Thus, there is notable overlap in the use of the 4 JAKs among the relatively larger number of various cytokines that utilize them to propagate intracellular signaling.¹ Janus kinase 1 is important for signaling of receptors activated by a variety of interleukins, as well as IFN-α, IFN-β, and IFN-γ. Janus kinase 2 is important for signaling for the hormonelike cytokines erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, growth hormone, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, IL-3, and IL-5. Janus kinase 3 is important for hematopoietic cell proliferation and function.¹

JAK Inhibitors and Atopic Dermatitis

Topical treatments, including corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, are considered the standard-of-care therapy for most patients with AD; however, their clinical benefit often is limited by their anatomic use restrictions and local adverse events, including skin atrophy, striae, and application-site reactions such as stinging and burning.³ As a result, long-term application of these drugs, particularly in sensitive areas, is not recommended owing to safety/tolerability issues.³ Systemic immunomodulatory medications are indicated for patients with AD who do not achieve adequate disease control with topical treatments and/or phototherapy or for patients with severely impaired quality of life.⁴

Janus kinase inhibitors have several key benefits over biologics: oral and topical bioavailability, predictable pharmacokinetics, nonimmunogenicity, and dosing flexibility.⁴ Janus kinase 1 is central to the cell signaling of many cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of AD that comprise the T-helper lymphocytes type 2 axis: IL-4, IL-13, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Janus kinase signaling also may mediate itch responses by acting directly on sensory nerve fibers. Consequently, the substantial reduction in pruritus seen in many studies of JAK inhibitors is thought to be in part due to the effects on sensory nerve fibers in the skin and the blockade of early itch signaling in response to IL-4, IL-13, and IL-31.⁵

Abrocitinib is a JAK1 inhibitor with a similar side effect profile to upadacitinib. Both agents were approved by the FDA for the treatment of refractory moderate to severe AD on January 14, 2022.⁶ These are second-generation (also referred to as selective) oral JAK inhibitors with much greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 than for JAK2, JAK3, or tyrosine kinase 2, thereby reducing the risk for hematopoietic effects associated with JAK2 inhibition. The approval of abrocitinib stemmed from the phase 3 clinical trial JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety (JADE)-MONO-1 (N=387),⁷ its replicate trial JADE-MONO-2 (N=391),⁸ and the JADE COMPARE trial.⁹ The JADE-MONO trials were multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that enrolled patients 12 years and older with moderate to severe AD.^7,8 Treatment groups consisted of 100-mg and 200-mg doses and were evaluated with the placebo group for their ability to achieve an investigator global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and eczema area and severity index 75 (EASI-75) at 12 weeks.^7,8 Sixty-three percent of patients in the 200-mg group, 40% in the 100-mg group, and 12% in the placebo group reached the EASI-75 end point, and the differences in these response rates were statistically significant vs placebo (100 mg: 27.9% [95% CI, 17.4-38.3], P<.0001; 200 mg: 51.0% [95% CI, 40.5-61.5], P<.0001). Notably, 44% of patients using the 200-mg dose achieved almost complete or complete resolution of AD (IGA responders, improvement of ≥2 and IGA score of 0 or 1 at 12 weeks).⁷ In JADE-MONO-2, EASI-75 also was achieved significantly more frequently in the treatment groups compared with the placebo group at 12 weeks (200 mg: 61.0%; 100 mg: 44.5%; placebo: 10.4%; P<.001 vs placebo).⁸ Adjunctive therapy with topical corticosteroids was prohibited in both studies. A dose-dependent decrease in platelets was seen in both trials, as in the phase 2 trial that preceded them.¹⁰

The primary end point of the JADE COMPARE trial was to evaluate the efficacy of abrocitinib as compared with placebo at 12 weeks in adult patients with moderate to severe AD and in the setting of concomitant topical corticosteroid therapy.⁹ One of several secondary end points of this study compared the ability of dupilumab vs abrocitinib and placebo treatment groups to achieve itch reduction at 2 weeks, defined as 4-point improvement or more from baseline in the score on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), a well‐defined, reliable, sensitive, and valid scale for evaluating worst itch intensity in adults with moderate to severe AD.^9,11 The primary end point was the same as in the other phase 3 studies and was met in the JADE COMPARE trial by all treatment arms. An EASI-75 was seen in 70.3% of patients treated with 200 mg of abrocitinib, 58.7% in the 100-mg abrocitinib group, 58.1% in the dupilumab group, and 27.1% in the placebo group (P<.001 for both abrocitinib doses vs placebo). Only the 200-mg dose of abrocitinib demonstrated superior itch response at week 2 compared with dupilumab (22.1% response rate difference [95% CI, 13.5-30.7; P<.001]). Both abrocitinib groups failed to demonstrate significant differences compared with dupilumab with respect to other secondary end points to include IGA response and EASI-75 at week 16.⁹

The most frequently reported treatment-associated adverse events were nausea, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache, and the percentages were similar among trial groups.⁹ Acne was more frequently reported in the abrocitinib groups compared with placebo and the dupilumab group, and conjunctivitis was more frequently reported in the dupilumab group. Herpesvirus cutaneous infections were rare in the abrocitinib groups, as were other serious infections. No deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), or venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) occurred during the trial. Dose-dependent increases in creatinine phosphokinase were seen in the abrocitinib groups, whereas dose-dependent decreases were seen in platelet counts, with no patient demonstrating a platelet count below 75,000/mm³ during the study.⁹ Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels increased in a dose-dependent manner as well, but the ratios of low-density lipoprotein to high-density lipoprotein were unchanged.⁹ The results of a phase 3, 92-week extension study, JADE EXTEND, were recently published and demonstrated a role for abrocitinib as a treatment for patients with moderate to severe AD, regardless of prior dupilumab response status.¹²

Upadacitinib, another selective JAK1 inhibitor, was approved following data from 2 replicate double-blind, phase 3, randomized, controlled trials—Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2.¹³ Results demonstrated that monotherapy with once-daily upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with moderate to severe AD vs placebo. All coprimary end points at week 16 were achieved in the upadacitinib groups in both trials. Acne, upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, headache, and increase in serum creatinine phosphokinase levels were the most frequently reported adverse events. Rates of herpes zoster infection in upadacitinib groups were low.¹³

In the subsequent phase 3 AD Up trial, researchers evaluated the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with topical corticosteroids in patients aged 12 to 75 years.¹⁴ Upadacitinib groups again achieved the identical coprimary end points that were present in the Measure Up trials¹³ as well as all key secondary end points.¹⁴ Additionally, significant differences in secondary end points, such as a 4-point improvement in the Worst Pruritus NRS vs placebo, were noticed in both upadacitinib treatment groups as early as 1 week into the study (P<.0001), with maintenance of the effect through to week 16 (P<.0001).¹⁴ AD Up was followed by the Heads Up trial, a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 692 adults with moderate to severe AD.¹⁵ At week 16, a higher percentage of patients in the upadacitinib group achieved EASI-75 vs the dupilumab group (71.0% vs 61.1%, respectively; P=.006). The difference noted at week 2 was even more impressive, with 43.7% of patients in the upadacitinib treatment group achieving EASI-75 compared with 17.4% in the dupilumab group (P<.001). No new safety-related events were registered compared with the already available data for both drugs.¹⁵

Ruxolitinib (RUX) is a topical JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor that was FDA approved in September 2021 for the treatment of AD.¹⁶ In a phase 2 clinical trial of 307 adult patients with 3% to 20% body surface area (BSA) affected with AD, significant reductions in itch NRS scores were observed within 36 hours after the first application of RUX cream 1.5% twice daily (-1.8 vs -0.2, P<.0001).¹⁷ These decreases were noted within the first 2 weeks of treatment for all the RUX cream regimens and were sustained through to week 8, the end of the double-blind period. At 4 weeks, change in itch from baseline was significantly reduced in the RUX 1.5% twice-daily group compared with the triamcinolone ointment 0.1% group (−4 vs −2.5, P=.003). During the open-label treatment period from 8 to 12 weeks, all patients who switched to RUX cream 1.5% twice daily noted further reductions in itch, and those who continued it demonstrated additional improvement.¹⁷

The recent FDA approval was further backed by positive phase 3 trial data from the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 studies.¹⁸ Patients in these trials were aged 12 years and older and had AD for 2 or more years with an IGA score of 2 or 3 and 3% to 20% affected BSA. Patients were randomized to twice-daily RUX cream 0.75%, RUX cream 1.5%, or vehicle cream, and the primary end point was an IGA score of 0 or 1 and an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline at week 8. Significantly more patients achieved IGA treatment success with RUX cream 0.75% (TRuE-AD1, 50.0%; TRuE-AD2, 39.0%) and RUX cream 1.5% (TRuE-AD1, 53.8%; TRuE-AD2, 51.3%) vs vehicle (TRuE-AD1, 15.1%; TRuE-AD2, 7.6%; P<.0001) at week 8. The RUX groups experienced dramatically reduced itch compared with vehicle, with a mean reduction of approximately 3 points on the NRS at 8 weeks. Additionally, statistically significant itch reductions vs vehicle were reported within 12 hours of first application of RUX cream 1.5% (P<.05). Application-site reactions including stinging and burning occurred in less than 1% of patients, and none were considered clinically significant. Mean plasma concentrations of RUX were monitored during the phase 2 and 3 AD studies and did not lead to any clinically meaningful changes in hematologic parameters. The low bioavailability following topical application of RUX cream (6% in the TRuE-AD studies) allows for a targeted delivery of the active drug to lesional skin while reducing the safety issues associated with oral administration of JAK inhibitors.¹⁸

Baricitinib is a predominantly JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor that was the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in the European Union and Japan.¹⁹ Although the FDA’s decision on baricitinib has lagged behind market competitors, in 2 phase 3 clinical trials, BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2, baricitinib demonstrated benefit over placebo on clinically important measures of disease severity. The primary end point—the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 or 1 with an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline at week 16—was met by both tested doses of baricitinib (2 mg and 4 mg) vs placebo in BREEZE-AD1 (2 mg, P≤.05; 4 mg, P≤.001) and BREEZE-AD2 (2 mg, P≤.05; 4 mg, P≤.001). In addition, baricitinib 4 mg consistently demonstrated significant benefit over placebo on other clinically important measures of disease severity at week 16 to include itch (BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001), sleep disturbance (BREEZE-AD1, P≤.01; BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001), and skin pain (BREEZE-AD1, P≤.01; BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001). Nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, creatine phosphokinase elevations, and headaches were the most frequently reported adverse events. During the 16-week treatment period in these trials, no deaths, MACEs, or VTEs occurred.¹⁹ Similar results were seen in a long-term extension study, BREEZE-AD3.²⁰ The combination of baricitinib and topical corticosteroids were evaluated in 2 additional phase 3 trials, BREEZE-AD4²¹ and BREEZE-AD7.²² Although only baricitinib 4 mg met the primary end point of EASI-75 at week 16 in both trials, both dosing regimens plus topical corticosteroids demonstrated notable reduction in multiple clinical and quality-of-life indices prior to week 2 when compared with placebo plus topical corticosteroids.^22,23

AD in Military Service Members

Atopic dermatitis is a common condition in the general population, with a prevalence of 7.3% (95% CI, 5.9-8.8) in a recent study of American adults.²⁴ Historically, the burden of AD that would be expected among active-duty military service members given the prevalence among the general population has not been observed, in part because of the disqualifying nature of AD for enlistment.²⁵ The Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Volume 1, Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction stipulates that a history of AD or eczema after the twelfth birthday or history of residual or recurrent lesions in characteristic areas (ie, face, neck, antecubital or popliteal fossae, occasionally wrists and hands) is disqualifying.²⁶ Specific military services possess additional standards that further define limits within the aforementioned Department of Defense instruction.²⁵ Additionally, there are service-specific policies in place that mandate medical evaluation boards to determine fitness for continued service in the event the condition interferes with the member’s ability to perform their duties. Insection 4.2 of the U.S. Navy Aeromedical Reference and Waiver Guide, further restrictions for aviation personnel are delineated: “Depending on the location of lesions, there can be interference with the wearing of flight gear. The symptoms, particularly itching, can be distracting in flight. Patients with atopic dermatitis are more susceptible to contact dermatitis due to irritants found in a military environment.” Ultimately, the document stipulates that symptom severity and the requirement for therapy will determine the aeromedical disposition. It specifically states that “[p]atients controlled on topical therapy over small areas and patients who are asymptomatic on stable doses of loratadine (Claritin) OR fexofenadine (Allegra) may be considered for waiver,” and “intermittent use of topical steroids over a limited area is compatible with waiver.”²⁷ It follows that limited use of topical JAK inhibitors, such as RUX, would be compatible with a waiver, given the favorable side effect profile and requirement for use in patients with 20% or lower affected BSA.¹⁶ This is just one example of duty-specific and service-specific medical standards that exist that could impact the use of both topical and oral JAK inhibitors.

Use of oral JAK inhibitors in active-duty service members is less ideal for multiple reasons. A large randomized safety clinical trial of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received tofacitinib and methotrexate was required by the FDA to evaluate the risk of MACEs, malignancy, and infections associated with JAK inhibitor treatment. Data from this trial showed a dose-dependent increased risk for MACEs, all-cause mortality, and thrombosis at both doses of tofacitinib compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and a non–dose-dependent increased risk for malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer.²⁸ In contrast to the MACE and VTE data from patients with diseases other than AD treated with JAK inhibitors, there has been only 1 patient who developed a pulmonary embolism while being treated with baricitinib 4 mg.^22,29 Downstream effects from the above study were label recommendations to reserve the medicines for patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or more tumor necrosis factor blockers and to carefully consider risks vs benefits in patients, in particular current or prior smokers, those with other cardiovascular risk factors or a history of VTE, and those with a malignancy history other than already treated nonmelanoma skin cancer.²⁸

There are consistent observations of laboratory abnormalities with JAK inhibitors, as discussed above, to include creatine phosphokinase elevation and cytopenias.³⁰ Although existing data demonstrate that cytopenias are less of a concern in the AD population compared with the rheumatoid arthritis population, baseline and periodic laboratory monitoring are still recommended. In general, pretreatment laboratory assessment prior to initiating an oral JAK inhibitor should consist of a complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, tuberculosis screening, chronic hepatitis panel, HIV screening, and a fasting lipid panel.² The feasibility of obtaining these laboratory measurements in an operational setting or sea-going platform is limited, but many deployed locations and naval vessels possess the laboratory capability to perform a complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel. Overall tolerability of oral JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AD appears favorable based on studies that were mostly 16 weeks in duration. Few recent longer-term studies have confirmed this side effect profile, but additional studies are needed.

Final Thoughts

Janus kinase inhibitors are a promising therapeutic class with multiple recently FDA-approved agents for the treatment of moderate to severe AD, with new agents on the horizon. Available efficacy data are promising and balanced by a favorable safety profile in clinical trials to date. The oral and topical bioavailability of JAK inhibitors makes them attractive alternatives to existing therapies. The rapidity of itch reduction and AD improvement demonstrated in multiple trials has the potential to decrease the length of limited-duty assignments, potentially returning treated service members to full-duty status more expeditiously. Other applications include use of these medications in scenarios where injectable medications are either unavailable or unsupported.

In the active-duty population, both the condition and/or the treatment may be duty limiting. Service members with AD who require more than topical treatment may require a medical evaluation board to determine if they are still fit to serve. The deployed environment routinely exacerbates AD and exposes service members to infections and environments where immunosuppression can create more risks than in the general population. Nonbiologic medications, which do not require refrigeration, are an exciting option for our patients with AD, including those actively serving or considering serving in the military. However, all factors in any patient’s life should be considered. Therefore, it is important for the nonmilitary dermatologist to work with local military physicians and the patient to determine the optimal treatment regimen to result in the best possible outcome.

The atopic dermatitis (AD) therapeutic landscape is changing considerably with the advent of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Several JAK inhibitors recently have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, building off years of foundational research aimed at elucidating the downstream effects of the JAK–signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway and its role in AD pathogenesis. Agents within this promising new class of drugs have performed well vs placebo in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. This article reviews relevant trial efficacy and safety data of several JAK inhibitors as well as the implications of the use of these medications in AD patients, with specific considerations unique to active-duty military personnel.

Background on JAK Inhibitors

The hematopoietin superfamily of cytokine receptors encompasses a broad group that includes receptors for immune (eg, IL-2, IL-4, IFN-γ), hematopoietic (eg, erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor), and nonimmune (eg, prolactin, leptin, growth hormone) cytokines. These cytokines signal via the JAK-STAT pathway. The hematopoietin family of cytokine receptors lacks intrinsic enzymatic activity, and as a result, they rely on JAK enzymes to transmit their signals intracellularly after cytokine binding to the receptor.¹ Janus, of Roman mythology, was the god of doorways and archways and was commonly depicted with 2 heads. Janus kinases were named for their 2 “faces,” the kinase domain with its adjacent regulatory kinaselike domains.² The binding of a cytokine to its receptor triggers engagement of the receptor by JAKs, leading to phosphorylation of both the JAKs and the receptor. Subsequent recruitment and phosphorylation of STAT proteins occurs. Following STAT phosphorylation, the STAT proteins dissociate, dimerize, and translocate to the nucleus, where they enact changes in cell behavior through transcriptional effects.¹

Humans possess only 4 JAKs. Janus kinase 1, JAK2, and tyrosine kinase 2 are widely expressed, whereas JAK3 expression is largely limited to immune cells. Thus, there is notable overlap in the use of the 4 JAKs among the relatively larger number of various cytokines that utilize them to propagate intracellular signaling.¹ Janus kinase 1 is important for signaling of receptors activated by a variety of interleukins, as well as IFN-α, IFN-β, and IFN-γ. Janus kinase 2 is important for signaling for the hormonelike cytokines erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, growth hormone, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, IL-3, and IL-5. Janus kinase 3 is important for hematopoietic cell proliferation and function.¹

JAK Inhibitors and Atopic Dermatitis

Topical treatments, including corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, are considered the standard-of-care therapy for most patients with AD; however, their clinical benefit often is limited by their anatomic use restrictions and local adverse events, including skin atrophy, striae, and application-site reactions such as stinging and burning.³ As a result, long-term application of these drugs, particularly in sensitive areas, is not recommended owing to safety/tolerability issues.³ Systemic immunomodulatory medications are indicated for patients with AD who do not achieve adequate disease control with topical treatments and/or phototherapy or for patients with severely impaired quality of life.⁴

Janus kinase inhibitors have several key benefits over biologics: oral and topical bioavailability, predictable pharmacokinetics, nonimmunogenicity, and dosing flexibility.⁴ Janus kinase 1 is central to the cell signaling of many cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of AD that comprise the T-helper lymphocytes type 2 axis: IL-4, IL-13, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Janus kinase signaling also may mediate itch responses by acting directly on sensory nerve fibers. Consequently, the substantial reduction in pruritus seen in many studies of JAK inhibitors is thought to be in part due to the effects on sensory nerve fibers in the skin and the blockade of early itch signaling in response to IL-4, IL-13, and IL-31.⁵

Abrocitinib is a JAK1 inhibitor with a similar side effect profile to upadacitinib. Both agents were approved by the FDA for the treatment of refractory moderate to severe AD on January 14, 2022.⁶ These are second-generation (also referred to as selective) oral JAK inhibitors with much greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 than for JAK2, JAK3, or tyrosine kinase 2, thereby reducing the risk for hematopoietic effects associated with JAK2 inhibition. The approval of abrocitinib stemmed from the phase 3 clinical trial JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety (JADE)-MONO-1 (N=387),⁷ its replicate trial JADE-MONO-2 (N=391),⁸ and the JADE COMPARE trial.⁹ The JADE-MONO trials were multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that enrolled patients 12 years and older with moderate to severe AD.^7,8 Treatment groups consisted of 100-mg and 200-mg doses and were evaluated with the placebo group for their ability to achieve an investigator global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and eczema area and severity index 75 (EASI-75) at 12 weeks.^7,8 Sixty-three percent of patients in the 200-mg group, 40% in the 100-mg group, and 12% in the placebo group reached the EASI-75 end point, and the differences in these response rates were statistically significant vs placebo (100 mg: 27.9% [95% CI, 17.4-38.3], P<.0001; 200 mg: 51.0% [95% CI, 40.5-61.5], P<.0001). Notably, 44% of patients using the 200-mg dose achieved almost complete or complete resolution of AD (IGA responders, improvement of ≥2 and IGA score of 0 or 1 at 12 weeks).⁷ In JADE-MONO-2, EASI-75 also was achieved significantly more frequently in the treatment groups compared with the placebo group at 12 weeks (200 mg: 61.0%; 100 mg: 44.5%; placebo: 10.4%; P<.001 vs placebo).⁸ Adjunctive therapy with topical corticosteroids was prohibited in both studies. A dose-dependent decrease in platelets was seen in both trials, as in the phase 2 trial that preceded them.¹⁰

The primary end point of the JADE COMPARE trial was to evaluate the efficacy of abrocitinib as compared with placebo at 12 weeks in adult patients with moderate to severe AD and in the setting of concomitant topical corticosteroid therapy.⁹ One of several secondary end points of this study compared the ability of dupilumab vs abrocitinib and placebo treatment groups to achieve itch reduction at 2 weeks, defined as 4-point improvement or more from baseline in the score on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), a well‐defined, reliable, sensitive, and valid scale for evaluating worst itch intensity in adults with moderate to severe AD.^9,11 The primary end point was the same as in the other phase 3 studies and was met in the JADE COMPARE trial by all treatment arms. An EASI-75 was seen in 70.3% of patients treated with 200 mg of abrocitinib, 58.7% in the 100-mg abrocitinib group, 58.1% in the dupilumab group, and 27.1% in the placebo group (P<.001 for both abrocitinib doses vs placebo). Only the 200-mg dose of abrocitinib demonstrated superior itch response at week 2 compared with dupilumab (22.1% response rate difference [95% CI, 13.5-30.7; P<.001]). Both abrocitinib groups failed to demonstrate significant differences compared with dupilumab with respect to other secondary end points to include IGA response and EASI-75 at week 16.⁹

The most frequently reported treatment-associated adverse events were nausea, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache, and the percentages were similar among trial groups.⁹ Acne was more frequently reported in the abrocitinib groups compared with placebo and the dupilumab group, and conjunctivitis was more frequently reported in the dupilumab group. Herpesvirus cutaneous infections were rare in the abrocitinib groups, as were other serious infections. No deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), or venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) occurred during the trial. Dose-dependent increases in creatinine phosphokinase were seen in the abrocitinib groups, whereas dose-dependent decreases were seen in platelet counts, with no patient demonstrating a platelet count below 75,000/mm³ during the study.⁹ Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels increased in a dose-dependent manner as well, but the ratios of low-density lipoprotein to high-density lipoprotein were unchanged.⁹ The results of a phase 3, 92-week extension study, JADE EXTEND, were recently published and demonstrated a role for abrocitinib as a treatment for patients with moderate to severe AD, regardless of prior dupilumab response status.¹²

Upadacitinib, another selective JAK1 inhibitor, was approved following data from 2 replicate double-blind, phase 3, randomized, controlled trials—Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2.¹³ Results demonstrated that monotherapy with once-daily upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with moderate to severe AD vs placebo. All coprimary end points at week 16 were achieved in the upadacitinib groups in both trials. Acne, upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, headache, and increase in serum creatinine phosphokinase levels were the most frequently reported adverse events. Rates of herpes zoster infection in upadacitinib groups were low.¹³

In the subsequent phase 3 AD Up trial, researchers evaluated the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with topical corticosteroids in patients aged 12 to 75 years.¹⁴ Upadacitinib groups again achieved the identical coprimary end points that were present in the Measure Up trials¹³ as well as all key secondary end points.¹⁴ Additionally, significant differences in secondary end points, such as a 4-point improvement in the Worst Pruritus NRS vs placebo, were noticed in both upadacitinib treatment groups as early as 1 week into the study (P<.0001), with maintenance of the effect through to week 16 (P<.0001).¹⁴ AD Up was followed by the Heads Up trial, a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 692 adults with moderate to severe AD.¹⁵ At week 16, a higher percentage of patients in the upadacitinib group achieved EASI-75 vs the dupilumab group (71.0% vs 61.1%, respectively; P=.006). The difference noted at week 2 was even more impressive, with 43.7% of patients in the upadacitinib treatment group achieving EASI-75 compared with 17.4% in the dupilumab group (P<.001). No new safety-related events were registered compared with the already available data for both drugs.¹⁵

Ruxolitinib (RUX) is a topical JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor that was FDA approved in September 2021 for the treatment of AD.¹⁶ In a phase 2 clinical trial of 307 adult patients with 3% to 20% body surface area (BSA) affected with AD, significant reductions in itch NRS scores were observed within 36 hours after the first application of RUX cream 1.5% twice daily (-1.8 vs -0.2, P<.0001).¹⁷ These decreases were noted within the first 2 weeks of treatment for all the RUX cream regimens and were sustained through to week 8, the end of the double-blind period. At 4 weeks, change in itch from baseline was significantly reduced in the RUX 1.5% twice-daily group compared with the triamcinolone ointment 0.1% group (−4 vs −2.5, P=.003). During the open-label treatment period from 8 to 12 weeks, all patients who switched to RUX cream 1.5% twice daily noted further reductions in itch, and those who continued it demonstrated additional improvement.¹⁷

The recent FDA approval was further backed by positive phase 3 trial data from the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 studies.¹⁸ Patients in these trials were aged 12 years and older and had AD for 2 or more years with an IGA score of 2 or 3 and 3% to 20% affected BSA. Patients were randomized to twice-daily RUX cream 0.75%, RUX cream 1.5%, or vehicle cream, and the primary end point was an IGA score of 0 or 1 and an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline at week 8. Significantly more patients achieved IGA treatment success with RUX cream 0.75% (TRuE-AD1, 50.0%; TRuE-AD2, 39.0%) and RUX cream 1.5% (TRuE-AD1, 53.8%; TRuE-AD2, 51.3%) vs vehicle (TRuE-AD1, 15.1%; TRuE-AD2, 7.6%; P<.0001) at week 8. The RUX groups experienced dramatically reduced itch compared with vehicle, with a mean reduction of approximately 3 points on the NRS at 8 weeks. Additionally, statistically significant itch reductions vs vehicle were reported within 12 hours of first application of RUX cream 1.5% (P<.05). Application-site reactions including stinging and burning occurred in less than 1% of patients, and none were considered clinically significant. Mean plasma concentrations of RUX were monitored during the phase 2 and 3 AD studies and did not lead to any clinically meaningful changes in hematologic parameters. The low bioavailability following topical application of RUX cream (6% in the TRuE-AD studies) allows for a targeted delivery of the active drug to lesional skin while reducing the safety issues associated with oral administration of JAK inhibitors.¹⁸

Baricitinib is a predominantly JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor that was the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in the European Union and Japan.¹⁹ Although the FDA’s decision on baricitinib has lagged behind market competitors, in 2 phase 3 clinical trials, BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2, baricitinib demonstrated benefit over placebo on clinically important measures of disease severity. The primary end point—the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 or 1 with an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline at week 16—was met by both tested doses of baricitinib (2 mg and 4 mg) vs placebo in BREEZE-AD1 (2 mg, P≤.05; 4 mg, P≤.001) and BREEZE-AD2 (2 mg, P≤.05; 4 mg, P≤.001). In addition, baricitinib 4 mg consistently demonstrated significant benefit over placebo on other clinically important measures of disease severity at week 16 to include itch (BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001), sleep disturbance (BREEZE-AD1, P≤.01; BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001), and skin pain (BREEZE-AD1, P≤.01; BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001). Nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, creatine phosphokinase elevations, and headaches were the most frequently reported adverse events. During the 16-week treatment period in these trials, no deaths, MACEs, or VTEs occurred.¹⁹ Similar results were seen in a long-term extension study, BREEZE-AD3.²⁰ The combination of baricitinib and topical corticosteroids were evaluated in 2 additional phase 3 trials, BREEZE-AD4²¹ and BREEZE-AD7.²² Although only baricitinib 4 mg met the primary end point of EASI-75 at week 16 in both trials, both dosing regimens plus topical corticosteroids demonstrated notable reduction in multiple clinical and quality-of-life indices prior to week 2 when compared with placebo plus topical corticosteroids.^22,23

AD in Military Service Members

Atopic dermatitis is a common condition in the general population, with a prevalence of 7.3% (95% CI, 5.9-8.8) in a recent study of American adults.²⁴ Historically, the burden of AD that would be expected among active-duty military service members given the prevalence among the general population has not been observed, in part because of the disqualifying nature of AD for enlistment.²⁵ The Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Volume 1, Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction stipulates that a history of AD or eczema after the twelfth birthday or history of residual or recurrent lesions in characteristic areas (ie, face, neck, antecubital or popliteal fossae, occasionally wrists and hands) is disqualifying.²⁶ Specific military services possess additional standards that further define limits within the aforementioned Department of Defense instruction.²⁵ Additionally, there are service-specific policies in place that mandate medical evaluation boards to determine fitness for continued service in the event the condition interferes with the member’s ability to perform their duties. Insection 4.2 of the U.S. Navy Aeromedical Reference and Waiver Guide, further restrictions for aviation personnel are delineated: “Depending on the location of lesions, there can be interference with the wearing of flight gear. The symptoms, particularly itching, can be distracting in flight. Patients with atopic dermatitis are more susceptible to contact dermatitis due to irritants found in a military environment.” Ultimately, the document stipulates that symptom severity and the requirement for therapy will determine the aeromedical disposition. It specifically states that “[p]atients controlled on topical therapy over small areas and patients who are asymptomatic on stable doses of loratadine (Claritin) OR fexofenadine (Allegra) may be considered for waiver,” and “intermittent use of topical steroids over a limited area is compatible with waiver.”²⁷ It follows that limited use of topical JAK inhibitors, such as RUX, would be compatible with a waiver, given the favorable side effect profile and requirement for use in patients with 20% or lower affected BSA.¹⁶ This is just one example of duty-specific and service-specific medical standards that exist that could impact the use of both topical and oral JAK inhibitors.

Use of oral JAK inhibitors in active-duty service members is less ideal for multiple reasons. A large randomized safety clinical trial of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received tofacitinib and methotrexate was required by the FDA to evaluate the risk of MACEs, malignancy, and infections associated with JAK inhibitor treatment. Data from this trial showed a dose-dependent increased risk for MACEs, all-cause mortality, and thrombosis at both doses of tofacitinib compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and a non–dose-dependent increased risk for malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer.²⁸ In contrast to the MACE and VTE data from patients with diseases other than AD treated with JAK inhibitors, there has been only 1 patient who developed a pulmonary embolism while being treated with baricitinib 4 mg.^22,29 Downstream effects from the above study were label recommendations to reserve the medicines for patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or more tumor necrosis factor blockers and to carefully consider risks vs benefits in patients, in particular current or prior smokers, those with other cardiovascular risk factors or a history of VTE, and those with a malignancy history other than already treated nonmelanoma skin cancer.²⁸

There are consistent observations of laboratory abnormalities with JAK inhibitors, as discussed above, to include creatine phosphokinase elevation and cytopenias.³⁰ Although existing data demonstrate that cytopenias are less of a concern in the AD population compared with the rheumatoid arthritis population, baseline and periodic laboratory monitoring are still recommended. In general, pretreatment laboratory assessment prior to initiating an oral JAK inhibitor should consist of a complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, tuberculosis screening, chronic hepatitis panel, HIV screening, and a fasting lipid panel.² The feasibility of obtaining these laboratory measurements in an operational setting or sea-going platform is limited, but many deployed locations and naval vessels possess the laboratory capability to perform a complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel. Overall tolerability of oral JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AD appears favorable based on studies that were mostly 16 weeks in duration. Few recent longer-term studies have confirmed this side effect profile, but additional studies are needed.

Final Thoughts

Janus kinase inhibitors are a promising therapeutic class with multiple recently FDA-approved agents for the treatment of moderate to severe AD, with new agents on the horizon. Available efficacy data are promising and balanced by a favorable safety profile in clinical trials to date. The oral and topical bioavailability of JAK inhibitors makes them attractive alternatives to existing therapies. The rapidity of itch reduction and AD improvement demonstrated in multiple trials has the potential to decrease the length of limited-duty assignments, potentially returning treated service members to full-duty status more expeditiously. Other applications include use of these medications in scenarios where injectable medications are either unavailable or unsupported.

In the active-duty population, both the condition and/or the treatment may be duty limiting. Service members with AD who require more than topical treatment may require a medical evaluation board to determine if they are still fit to serve. The deployed environment routinely exacerbates AD and exposes service members to infections and environments where immunosuppression can create more risks than in the general population. Nonbiologic medications, which do not require refrigeration, are an exciting option for our patients with AD, including those actively serving or considering serving in the military. However, all factors in any patient’s life should be considered. Therefore, it is important for the nonmilitary dermatologist to work with local military physicians and the patient to determine the optimal treatment regimen to result in the best possible outcome.

The atopic dermatitis (AD) therapeutic landscape is changing considerably with the advent of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Several JAK inhibitors recently have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, building off years of foundational research aimed at elucidating the downstream effects of the JAK–signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway and its role in AD pathogenesis. Agents within this promising new class of drugs have performed well vs placebo in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. This article reviews relevant trial efficacy and safety data of several JAK inhibitors as well as the implications of the use of these medications in AD patients, with specific considerations unique to active-duty military personnel.

Background on JAK Inhibitors

The hematopoietin superfamily of cytokine receptors encompasses a broad group that includes receptors for immune (eg, IL-2, IL-4, IFN-γ), hematopoietic (eg, erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor), and nonimmune (eg, prolactin, leptin, growth hormone) cytokines. These cytokines signal via the JAK-STAT pathway. The hematopoietin family of cytokine receptors lacks intrinsic enzymatic activity, and as a result, they rely on JAK enzymes to transmit their signals intracellularly after cytokine binding to the receptor.¹ Janus, of Roman mythology, was the god of doorways and archways and was commonly depicted with 2 heads. Janus kinases were named for their 2 “faces,” the kinase domain with its adjacent regulatory kinaselike domains.² The binding of a cytokine to its receptor triggers engagement of the receptor by JAKs, leading to phosphorylation of both the JAKs and the receptor. Subsequent recruitment and phosphorylation of STAT proteins occurs. Following STAT phosphorylation, the STAT proteins dissociate, dimerize, and translocate to the nucleus, where they enact changes in cell behavior through transcriptional effects.¹

Humans possess only 4 JAKs. Janus kinase 1, JAK2, and tyrosine kinase 2 are widely expressed, whereas JAK3 expression is largely limited to immune cells. Thus, there is notable overlap in the use of the 4 JAKs among the relatively larger number of various cytokines that utilize them to propagate intracellular signaling.¹ Janus kinase 1 is important for signaling of receptors activated by a variety of interleukins, as well as IFN-α, IFN-β, and IFN-γ. Janus kinase 2 is important for signaling for the hormonelike cytokines erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, growth hormone, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, IL-3, and IL-5. Janus kinase 3 is important for hematopoietic cell proliferation and function.¹

JAK Inhibitors and Atopic Dermatitis

Topical treatments, including corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, are considered the standard-of-care therapy for most patients with AD; however, their clinical benefit often is limited by their anatomic use restrictions and local adverse events, including skin atrophy, striae, and application-site reactions such as stinging and burning.³ As a result, long-term application of these drugs, particularly in sensitive areas, is not recommended owing to safety/tolerability issues.³ Systemic immunomodulatory medications are indicated for patients with AD who do not achieve adequate disease control with topical treatments and/or phototherapy or for patients with severely impaired quality of life.⁴

Janus kinase inhibitors have several key benefits over biologics: oral and topical bioavailability, predictable pharmacokinetics, nonimmunogenicity, and dosing flexibility.⁴ Janus kinase 1 is central to the cell signaling of many cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of AD that comprise the T-helper lymphocytes type 2 axis: IL-4, IL-13, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Janus kinase signaling also may mediate itch responses by acting directly on sensory nerve fibers. Consequently, the substantial reduction in pruritus seen in many studies of JAK inhibitors is thought to be in part due to the effects on sensory nerve fibers in the skin and the blockade of early itch signaling in response to IL-4, IL-13, and IL-31.⁵

Abrocitinib is a JAK1 inhibitor with a similar side effect profile to upadacitinib. Both agents were approved by the FDA for the treatment of refractory moderate to severe AD on January 14, 2022.⁶ These are second-generation (also referred to as selective) oral JAK inhibitors with much greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 than for JAK2, JAK3, or tyrosine kinase 2, thereby reducing the risk for hematopoietic effects associated with JAK2 inhibition. The approval of abrocitinib stemmed from the phase 3 clinical trial JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety (JADE)-MONO-1 (N=387),⁷ its replicate trial JADE-MONO-2 (N=391),⁸ and the JADE COMPARE trial.⁹ The JADE-MONO trials were multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that enrolled patients 12 years and older with moderate to severe AD.^7,8 Treatment groups consisted of 100-mg and 200-mg doses and were evaluated with the placebo group for their ability to achieve an investigator global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and eczema area and severity index 75 (EASI-75) at 12 weeks.^7,8 Sixty-three percent of patients in the 200-mg group, 40% in the 100-mg group, and 12% in the placebo group reached the EASI-75 end point, and the differences in these response rates were statistically significant vs placebo (100 mg: 27.9% [95% CI, 17.4-38.3], P<.0001; 200 mg: 51.0% [95% CI, 40.5-61.5], P<.0001). Notably, 44% of patients using the 200-mg dose achieved almost complete or complete resolution of AD (IGA responders, improvement of ≥2 and IGA score of 0 or 1 at 12 weeks).⁷ In JADE-MONO-2, EASI-75 also was achieved significantly more frequently in the treatment groups compared with the placebo group at 12 weeks (200 mg: 61.0%; 100 mg: 44.5%; placebo: 10.4%; P<.001 vs placebo).⁸ Adjunctive therapy with topical corticosteroids was prohibited in both studies. A dose-dependent decrease in platelets was seen in both trials, as in the phase 2 trial that preceded them.¹⁰

The primary end point of the JADE COMPARE trial was to evaluate the efficacy of abrocitinib as compared with placebo at 12 weeks in adult patients with moderate to severe AD and in the setting of concomitant topical corticosteroid therapy.⁹ One of several secondary end points of this study compared the ability of dupilumab vs abrocitinib and placebo treatment groups to achieve itch reduction at 2 weeks, defined as 4-point improvement or more from baseline in the score on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), a well‐defined, reliable, sensitive, and valid scale for evaluating worst itch intensity in adults with moderate to severe AD.^9,11 The primary end point was the same as in the other phase 3 studies and was met in the JADE COMPARE trial by all treatment arms. An EASI-75 was seen in 70.3% of patients treated with 200 mg of abrocitinib, 58.7% in the 100-mg abrocitinib group, 58.1% in the dupilumab group, and 27.1% in the placebo group (P<.001 for both abrocitinib doses vs placebo). Only the 200-mg dose of abrocitinib demonstrated superior itch response at week 2 compared with dupilumab (22.1% response rate difference [95% CI, 13.5-30.7; P<.001]). Both abrocitinib groups failed to demonstrate significant differences compared with dupilumab with respect to other secondary end points to include IGA response and EASI-75 at week 16.⁹

The most frequently reported treatment-associated adverse events were nausea, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache, and the percentages were similar among trial groups.⁹ Acne was more frequently reported in the abrocitinib groups compared with placebo and the dupilumab group, and conjunctivitis was more frequently reported in the dupilumab group. Herpesvirus cutaneous infections were rare in the abrocitinib groups, as were other serious infections. No deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), or venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) occurred during the trial. Dose-dependent increases in creatinine phosphokinase were seen in the abrocitinib groups, whereas dose-dependent decreases were seen in platelet counts, with no patient demonstrating a platelet count below 75,000/mm³ during the study.⁹ Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels increased in a dose-dependent manner as well, but the ratios of low-density lipoprotein to high-density lipoprotein were unchanged.⁹ The results of a phase 3, 92-week extension study, JADE EXTEND, were recently published and demonstrated a role for abrocitinib as a treatment for patients with moderate to severe AD, regardless of prior dupilumab response status.¹²

Upadacitinib, another selective JAK1 inhibitor, was approved following data from 2 replicate double-blind, phase 3, randomized, controlled trials—Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2.¹³ Results demonstrated that monotherapy with once-daily upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with moderate to severe AD vs placebo. All coprimary end points at week 16 were achieved in the upadacitinib groups in both trials. Acne, upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, headache, and increase in serum creatinine phosphokinase levels were the most frequently reported adverse events. Rates of herpes zoster infection in upadacitinib groups were low.¹³

In the subsequent phase 3 AD Up trial, researchers evaluated the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with topical corticosteroids in patients aged 12 to 75 years.¹⁴ Upadacitinib groups again achieved the identical coprimary end points that were present in the Measure Up trials¹³ as well as all key secondary end points.¹⁴ Additionally, significant differences in secondary end points, such as a 4-point improvement in the Worst Pruritus NRS vs placebo, were noticed in both upadacitinib treatment groups as early as 1 week into the study (P<.0001), with maintenance of the effect through to week 16 (P<.0001).¹⁴ AD Up was followed by the Heads Up trial, a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 692 adults with moderate to severe AD.¹⁵ At week 16, a higher percentage of patients in the upadacitinib group achieved EASI-75 vs the dupilumab group (71.0% vs 61.1%, respectively; P=.006). The difference noted at week 2 was even more impressive, with 43.7% of patients in the upadacitinib treatment group achieving EASI-75 compared with 17.4% in the dupilumab group (P<.001). No new safety-related events were registered compared with the already available data for both drugs.¹⁵

Ruxolitinib (RUX) is a topical JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor that was FDA approved in September 2021 for the treatment of AD.¹⁶ In a phase 2 clinical trial of 307 adult patients with 3% to 20% body surface area (BSA) affected with AD, significant reductions in itch NRS scores were observed within 36 hours after the first application of RUX cream 1.5% twice daily (-1.8 vs -0.2, P<.0001).¹⁷ These decreases were noted within the first 2 weeks of treatment for all the RUX cream regimens and were sustained through to week 8, the end of the double-blind period. At 4 weeks, change in itch from baseline was significantly reduced in the RUX 1.5% twice-daily group compared with the triamcinolone ointment 0.1% group (−4 vs −2.5, P=.003). During the open-label treatment period from 8 to 12 weeks, all patients who switched to RUX cream 1.5% twice daily noted further reductions in itch, and those who continued it demonstrated additional improvement.¹⁷

The recent FDA approval was further backed by positive phase 3 trial data from the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 studies.¹⁸ Patients in these trials were aged 12 years and older and had AD for 2 or more years with an IGA score of 2 or 3 and 3% to 20% affected BSA. Patients were randomized to twice-daily RUX cream 0.75%, RUX cream 1.5%, or vehicle cream, and the primary end point was an IGA score of 0 or 1 and an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline at week 8. Significantly more patients achieved IGA treatment success with RUX cream 0.75% (TRuE-AD1, 50.0%; TRuE-AD2, 39.0%) and RUX cream 1.5% (TRuE-AD1, 53.8%; TRuE-AD2, 51.3%) vs vehicle (TRuE-AD1, 15.1%; TRuE-AD2, 7.6%; P<.0001) at week 8. The RUX groups experienced dramatically reduced itch compared with vehicle, with a mean reduction of approximately 3 points on the NRS at 8 weeks. Additionally, statistically significant itch reductions vs vehicle were reported within 12 hours of first application of RUX cream 1.5% (P<.05). Application-site reactions including stinging and burning occurred in less than 1% of patients, and none were considered clinically significant. Mean plasma concentrations of RUX were monitored during the phase 2 and 3 AD studies and did not lead to any clinically meaningful changes in hematologic parameters. The low bioavailability following topical application of RUX cream (6% in the TRuE-AD studies) allows for a targeted delivery of the active drug to lesional skin while reducing the safety issues associated with oral administration of JAK inhibitors.¹⁸

Baricitinib is a predominantly JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor that was the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in the European Union and Japan.¹⁹ Although the FDA’s decision on baricitinib has lagged behind market competitors, in 2 phase 3 clinical trials, BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2, baricitinib demonstrated benefit over placebo on clinically important measures of disease severity. The primary end point—the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 or 1 with an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline at week 16—was met by both tested doses of baricitinib (2 mg and 4 mg) vs placebo in BREEZE-AD1 (2 mg, P≤.05; 4 mg, P≤.001) and BREEZE-AD2 (2 mg, P≤.05; 4 mg, P≤.001). In addition, baricitinib 4 mg consistently demonstrated significant benefit over placebo on other clinically important measures of disease severity at week 16 to include itch (BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001), sleep disturbance (BREEZE-AD1, P≤.01; BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001), and skin pain (BREEZE-AD1, P≤.01; BREEZE-AD2, P≤.001). Nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, creatine phosphokinase elevations, and headaches were the most frequently reported adverse events. During the 16-week treatment period in these trials, no deaths, MACEs, or VTEs occurred.¹⁹ Similar results were seen in a long-term extension study, BREEZE-AD3.²⁰ The combination of baricitinib and topical corticosteroids were evaluated in 2 additional phase 3 trials, BREEZE-AD4²¹ and BREEZE-AD7.²² Although only baricitinib 4 mg met the primary end point of EASI-75 at week 16 in both trials, both dosing regimens plus topical corticosteroids demonstrated notable reduction in multiple clinical and quality-of-life indices prior to week 2 when compared with placebo plus topical corticosteroids.^22,23

AD in Military Service Members

Atopic dermatitis is a common condition in the general population, with a prevalence of 7.3% (95% CI, 5.9-8.8) in a recent study of American adults.²⁴ Historically, the burden of AD that would be expected among active-duty military service members given the prevalence among the general population has not been observed, in part because of the disqualifying nature of AD for enlistment.²⁵ The Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Volume 1, Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction stipulates that a history of AD or eczema after the twelfth birthday or history of residual or recurrent lesions in characteristic areas (ie, face, neck, antecubital or popliteal fossae, occasionally wrists and hands) is disqualifying.²⁶ Specific military services possess additional standards that further define limits within the aforementioned Department of Defense instruction.²⁵ Additionally, there are service-specific policies in place that mandate medical evaluation boards to determine fitness for continued service in the event the condition interferes with the member’s ability to perform their duties. Insection 4.2 of the U.S. Navy Aeromedical Reference and Waiver Guide, further restrictions for aviation personnel are delineated: “Depending on the location of lesions, there can be interference with the wearing of flight gear. The symptoms, particularly itching, can be distracting in flight. Patients with atopic dermatitis are more susceptible to contact dermatitis due to irritants found in a military environment.” Ultimately, the document stipulates that symptom severity and the requirement for therapy will determine the aeromedical disposition. It specifically states that “[p]atients controlled on topical therapy over small areas and patients who are asymptomatic on stable doses of loratadine (Claritin) OR fexofenadine (Allegra) may be considered for waiver,” and “intermittent use of topical steroids over a limited area is compatible with waiver.”²⁷ It follows that limited use of topical JAK inhibitors, such as RUX, would be compatible with a waiver, given the favorable side effect profile and requirement for use in patients with 20% or lower affected BSA.¹⁶ This is just one example of duty-specific and service-specific medical standards that exist that could impact the use of both topical and oral JAK inhibitors.

Use of oral JAK inhibitors in active-duty service members is less ideal for multiple reasons. A large randomized safety clinical trial of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received tofacitinib and methotrexate was required by the FDA to evaluate the risk of MACEs, malignancy, and infections associated with JAK inhibitor treatment. Data from this trial showed a dose-dependent increased risk for MACEs, all-cause mortality, and thrombosis at both doses of tofacitinib compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and a non–dose-dependent increased risk for malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer.²⁸ In contrast to the MACE and VTE data from patients with diseases other than AD treated with JAK inhibitors, there has been only 1 patient who developed a pulmonary embolism while being treated with baricitinib 4 mg.^22,29 Downstream effects from the above study were label recommendations to reserve the medicines for patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or more tumor necrosis factor blockers and to carefully consider risks vs benefits in patients, in particular current or prior smokers, those with other cardiovascular risk factors or a history of VTE, and those with a malignancy history other than already treated nonmelanoma skin cancer.²⁸

There are consistent observations of laboratory abnormalities with JAK inhibitors, as discussed above, to include creatine phosphokinase elevation and cytopenias.³⁰ Although existing data demonstrate that cytopenias are less of a concern in the AD population compared with the rheumatoid arthritis population, baseline and periodic laboratory monitoring are still recommended. In general, pretreatment laboratory assessment prior to initiating an oral JAK inhibitor should consist of a complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, tuberculosis screening, chronic hepatitis panel, HIV screening, and a fasting lipid panel.² The feasibility of obtaining these laboratory measurements in an operational setting or sea-going platform is limited, but many deployed locations and naval vessels possess the laboratory capability to perform a complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel. Overall tolerability of oral JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AD appears favorable based on studies that were mostly 16 weeks in duration. Few recent longer-term studies have confirmed this side effect profile, but additional studies are needed.

Final Thoughts

Janus kinase inhibitors are a promising therapeutic class with multiple recently FDA-approved agents for the treatment of moderate to severe AD, with new agents on the horizon. Available efficacy data are promising and balanced by a favorable safety profile in clinical trials to date. The oral and topical bioavailability of JAK inhibitors makes them attractive alternatives to existing therapies. The rapidity of itch reduction and AD improvement demonstrated in multiple trials has the potential to decrease the length of limited-duty assignments, potentially returning treated service members to full-duty status more expeditiously. Other applications include use of these medications in scenarios where injectable medications are either unavailable or unsupported.

In the active-duty population, both the condition and/or the treatment may be duty limiting. Service members with AD who require more than topical treatment may require a medical evaluation board to determine if they are still fit to serve. The deployed environment routinely exacerbates AD and exposes service members to infections and environments where immunosuppression can create more risks than in the general population. Nonbiologic medications, which do not require refrigeration, are an exciting option for our patients with AD, including those actively serving or considering serving in the military. However, all factors in any patient’s life should be considered. Therefore, it is important for the nonmilitary dermatologist to work with local military physicians and the patient to determine the optimal treatment regimen to result in the best possible outcome.

New Year, New Codes: A Win-Win for Digital Pathology

In July 2022, the American Medical Association CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) Editorial Panel released 13 new digital pathology add-on Category III codes for 2023 that the College of American Pathologists successfully advocated for inclusion.¹ These codes are for reporting additional clinical staff work and service requirements associated with digitizing glass microscope slides for primary diagnosis (Table). They go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Although there is no additional compensation with the new Category III codes, dermatopathology laboratories will be able to report when they have made a diagnosis using digital pathology. The new CPT codes will provide payers with data they need to directly understand the utilization and increased value of digital pathology, which will bring dermatopathology laboratories one step closer to receiving additional reimbursement for digital interpretation.

The adoption of digital pathology has been accelerating in the United States but still lags behind many European countries where reimbursement for digital pathology has been established for many years. Many of the barriers to digital pathology have improved—cloud storage is more affordable, scanners have a higher throughput, digital pathology platforms have improved, and the US Food and Drug Administration has granted approvals for digital pathology. Digital pathology allows for more efficient workflow, which results in increased productivity and a reduction in turnaround times. It also allows for a wide spectrum of clinical applications and more innovation as well as research and educational applications.

The new Category III codes cannot be reported solely for archival purposes (eg, after the Category I service has already been performed and reported), solely for educational purposes (eg, when services are not used for individual patient reporting), solely for developing a database for training or validation of artificial intelligence algorithms, and solely for clinical conference presentations (eg, tumor board interdisciplinary conferences).

The new codes are a major victory for the adoption and future compensation for digital pathology.

New Year, New Cuts: Proposed 2023 Medicare Policy and Payment Changes for Dermatologists

The United States Spent $3.8 Trillion on Health Care in 2019: Where Did It Go?—In 2019, approximately $3.8 trillion was spent on health care in the United States (Figure 1). Physician services accounted for approximately 15% of total health care spending.²

Medicare Payments for Physician Services—Medicare payments for physician services are determined by a relative value unit (RVU) multiplied by a conversion factor (CF). Relative value units were set up in 1992 by what is now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and they calculated the time it took a physician to complete a task or RVU and multiplied it by $32.00 (CF).³

Thirty years later—in 2022—the CF is $34.61. If the CF had increased with inflation, it would be $59.00. If the Proposed Rule is adopted, the 2023 fee schedule payment formula would decrease by 4.4% (to $33.08) relative to that of the 2022 fee schedule ($34.61), which is a decrease of 8.2% since 2019 ($36.04). This decrease is due to expiration of the 3% increase to Medicare fee schedule payments for 2022 required by the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act and the required budget neutrality adjustment required by changes in RVUs. Medicare physician payment has declined 22% from 2001 to 2022 (Figure 2).^4,5

The adjustments to the CF typically are made based on 3 factors: (1) the Medicare Economic Index; (2) expenditure target “performance adjustment”; and (3) miscellaneous adjustments, including those for “budget neutrality” required by law.

Medicare Physician Payments Compared With Other Provider Types and Inflation—The proposed Medicare physician payment policy is unsustainable for outpatient dermatologists. Practice overhead has increased markedly since 1992. Other service providers, such as those in skilled nursing facilities and hospitals (Figure 3), have received favorable payment increases compared with practice cost inflation and the Consumer Price Index.^3-6 Flat reimbursement affects all physicians who accept insurance, as even private insurers base their reimbursement on Medicare.

In addition, there are other issues resulting in decreased physician payments when evaluation and management services are reported with same-day procedures using modifier −25 as well as preserving or finding alternative strategies for 10- and 90-day global period payments for medical procedures. When Medicare cuts physician payments, dermatologists find it difficult to own and operate their own practices, resulting in health market consolidation, limited competition, increased health care costs, limited patient access to care, and decreased quality of health care.

Medicare Payment Reform—Medicare payment reform is necessary to stop annual payment cuts and create a stable predictable payment system that ensures patient access to quality, value-based care. Medicare physician payment reform needs to happen at a national level. The American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) is working with the House of Medicine and the medical specialty community to develop specific proposals, such as “Characteristics of a Rational Medicare Physician Payment System,” to reform Medicare’s payment system.⁷ Advocacy groups, including the AADA, have been working to mitigate the proposed 2023 cuts by engaging with Congress and urging them to act before these changes go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Make Advocacy Your New Year’s Resolution: AADA’s Top Advocacy Priorities

The AADA’s top priority is Medicare payment policies.³ In addition, the AADA is working on drug access and cost by cutting the bureaucratic red tape caused by prior authorization (PA) and step therapy policies. The AADA collaborates with manufacturers, the health care community, policymakers, private payers, pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers, and patients to minimize and/or eliminate barriers that patients face in accessing needed medications. Specifically, the AADA advocates for legislation that limits obstacles associated with health insurance step therapy requirements, streamlines PA, and prohibits mid-year formulary changes.⁸

Step therapy requires that patients first try a medication specified by the insurance company; the therapy must fail before the patient is placed on the medication originally prescribed by the provider. Regarding PA, the AADA tries to ensure that determinations are standardized, requires the speed of determinations to be quantified and minimized, and ensures that PA and appeals policies do not unduly burden physicians or patients in accessing optimal drug therapy.⁸

Another advocacy priority is telehealth. The AADA is advocating for legislation on expansion of telehealth in underserved areas and modifications to state licensure requirements, liability issues, and reimbursement for store-and-forward technology. The AADA is involved in protecting scope of practice, truth in advertising, and access to specialty care, as well as monitoring legislation and regulation concerning the potential environmental impact of sunscreen ingredients, indoor tanning restrictions, and skin cancer prevention.⁸

Advocacy Matters and Makes a Difference—It is important to learn about and support advocacy priorities and efforts and join forces to protect your practice. The AADA advocacy priorities are to protect the value of dermatology services, mobilize dermatologists for political action, ensure dermatologists can participate in new payment models, and strengthen the profession.⁹ Physician advocacy is no longer an elective pursuit. We need to be involved and engaged through our medical societies to help patients, communities, and ourselves. All of us are in it together, and a collaborative collective voice can make a difference. Take action, join the AADA, and contact Congress today to stop Medicare payment cuts (https://takeaction.aad.org/).

New Year, New Codes: A Win-Win for Digital Pathology

In July 2022, the American Medical Association CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) Editorial Panel released 13 new digital pathology add-on Category III codes for 2023 that the College of American Pathologists successfully advocated for inclusion.¹ These codes are for reporting additional clinical staff work and service requirements associated with digitizing glass microscope slides for primary diagnosis (Table). They go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Although there is no additional compensation with the new Category III codes, dermatopathology laboratories will be able to report when they have made a diagnosis using digital pathology. The new CPT codes will provide payers with data they need to directly understand the utilization and increased value of digital pathology, which will bring dermatopathology laboratories one step closer to receiving additional reimbursement for digital interpretation.

The adoption of digital pathology has been accelerating in the United States but still lags behind many European countries where reimbursement for digital pathology has been established for many years. Many of the barriers to digital pathology have improved—cloud storage is more affordable, scanners have a higher throughput, digital pathology platforms have improved, and the US Food and Drug Administration has granted approvals for digital pathology. Digital pathology allows for more efficient workflow, which results in increased productivity and a reduction in turnaround times. It also allows for a wide spectrum of clinical applications and more innovation as well as research and educational applications.

The new Category III codes cannot be reported solely for archival purposes (eg, after the Category I service has already been performed and reported), solely for educational purposes (eg, when services are not used for individual patient reporting), solely for developing a database for training or validation of artificial intelligence algorithms, and solely for clinical conference presentations (eg, tumor board interdisciplinary conferences).

The new codes are a major victory for the adoption and future compensation for digital pathology.

New Year, New Cuts: Proposed 2023 Medicare Policy and Payment Changes for Dermatologists

The United States Spent $3.8 Trillion on Health Care in 2019: Where Did It Go?—In 2019, approximately $3.8 trillion was spent on health care in the United States (Figure 1). Physician services accounted for approximately 15% of total health care spending.²

Medicare Payments for Physician Services—Medicare payments for physician services are determined by a relative value unit (RVU) multiplied by a conversion factor (CF). Relative value units were set up in 1992 by what is now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and they calculated the time it took a physician to complete a task or RVU and multiplied it by $32.00 (CF).³

Thirty years later—in 2022—the CF is $34.61. If the CF had increased with inflation, it would be $59.00. If the Proposed Rule is adopted, the 2023 fee schedule payment formula would decrease by 4.4% (to $33.08) relative to that of the 2022 fee schedule ($34.61), which is a decrease of 8.2% since 2019 ($36.04). This decrease is due to expiration of the 3% increase to Medicare fee schedule payments for 2022 required by the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act and the required budget neutrality adjustment required by changes in RVUs. Medicare physician payment has declined 22% from 2001 to 2022 (Figure 2).^4,5

The adjustments to the CF typically are made based on 3 factors: (1) the Medicare Economic Index; (2) expenditure target “performance adjustment”; and (3) miscellaneous adjustments, including those for “budget neutrality” required by law.

Medicare Physician Payments Compared With Other Provider Types and Inflation—The proposed Medicare physician payment policy is unsustainable for outpatient dermatologists. Practice overhead has increased markedly since 1992. Other service providers, such as those in skilled nursing facilities and hospitals (Figure 3), have received favorable payment increases compared with practice cost inflation and the Consumer Price Index.^3-6 Flat reimbursement affects all physicians who accept insurance, as even private insurers base their reimbursement on Medicare.

In addition, there are other issues resulting in decreased physician payments when evaluation and management services are reported with same-day procedures using modifier −25 as well as preserving or finding alternative strategies for 10- and 90-day global period payments for medical procedures. When Medicare cuts physician payments, dermatologists find it difficult to own and operate their own practices, resulting in health market consolidation, limited competition, increased health care costs, limited patient access to care, and decreased quality of health care.

Medicare Payment Reform—Medicare payment reform is necessary to stop annual payment cuts and create a stable predictable payment system that ensures patient access to quality, value-based care. Medicare physician payment reform needs to happen at a national level. The American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) is working with the House of Medicine and the medical specialty community to develop specific proposals, such as “Characteristics of a Rational Medicare Physician Payment System,” to reform Medicare’s payment system.⁷ Advocacy groups, including the AADA, have been working to mitigate the proposed 2023 cuts by engaging with Congress and urging them to act before these changes go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Make Advocacy Your New Year’s Resolution: AADA’s Top Advocacy Priorities

The AADA’s top priority is Medicare payment policies.³ In addition, the AADA is working on drug access and cost by cutting the bureaucratic red tape caused by prior authorization (PA) and step therapy policies. The AADA collaborates with manufacturers, the health care community, policymakers, private payers, pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers, and patients to minimize and/or eliminate barriers that patients face in accessing needed medications. Specifically, the AADA advocates for legislation that limits obstacles associated with health insurance step therapy requirements, streamlines PA, and prohibits mid-year formulary changes.⁸

Step therapy requires that patients first try a medication specified by the insurance company; the therapy must fail before the patient is placed on the medication originally prescribed by the provider. Regarding PA, the AADA tries to ensure that determinations are standardized, requires the speed of determinations to be quantified and minimized, and ensures that PA and appeals policies do not unduly burden physicians or patients in accessing optimal drug therapy.⁸

Another advocacy priority is telehealth. The AADA is advocating for legislation on expansion of telehealth in underserved areas and modifications to state licensure requirements, liability issues, and reimbursement for store-and-forward technology. The AADA is involved in protecting scope of practice, truth in advertising, and access to specialty care, as well as monitoring legislation and regulation concerning the potential environmental impact of sunscreen ingredients, indoor tanning restrictions, and skin cancer prevention.⁸

Advocacy Matters and Makes a Difference—It is important to learn about and support advocacy priorities and efforts and join forces to protect your practice. The AADA advocacy priorities are to protect the value of dermatology services, mobilize dermatologists for political action, ensure dermatologists can participate in new payment models, and strengthen the profession.⁹ Physician advocacy is no longer an elective pursuit. We need to be involved and engaged through our medical societies to help patients, communities, and ourselves. All of us are in it together, and a collaborative collective voice can make a difference. Take action, join the AADA, and contact Congress today to stop Medicare payment cuts (https://takeaction.aad.org/).

New Year, New Codes: A Win-Win for Digital Pathology

In July 2022, the American Medical Association CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) Editorial Panel released 13 new digital pathology add-on Category III codes for 2023 that the College of American Pathologists successfully advocated for inclusion.¹ These codes are for reporting additional clinical staff work and service requirements associated with digitizing glass microscope slides for primary diagnosis (Table). They go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Although there is no additional compensation with the new Category III codes, dermatopathology laboratories will be able to report when they have made a diagnosis using digital pathology. The new CPT codes will provide payers with data they need to directly understand the utilization and increased value of digital pathology, which will bring dermatopathology laboratories one step closer to receiving additional reimbursement for digital interpretation.

The adoption of digital pathology has been accelerating in the United States but still lags behind many European countries where reimbursement for digital pathology has been established for many years. Many of the barriers to digital pathology have improved—cloud storage is more affordable, scanners have a higher throughput, digital pathology platforms have improved, and the US Food and Drug Administration has granted approvals for digital pathology. Digital pathology allows for more efficient workflow, which results in increased productivity and a reduction in turnaround times. It also allows for a wide spectrum of clinical applications and more innovation as well as research and educational applications.

The new Category III codes cannot be reported solely for archival purposes (eg, after the Category I service has already been performed and reported), solely for educational purposes (eg, when services are not used for individual patient reporting), solely for developing a database for training or validation of artificial intelligence algorithms, and solely for clinical conference presentations (eg, tumor board interdisciplinary conferences).

The new codes are a major victory for the adoption and future compensation for digital pathology.

New Year, New Cuts: Proposed 2023 Medicare Policy and Payment Changes for Dermatologists

The United States Spent $3.8 Trillion on Health Care in 2019: Where Did It Go?—In 2019, approximately $3.8 trillion was spent on health care in the United States (Figure 1). Physician services accounted for approximately 15% of total health care spending.²

Medicare Payments for Physician Services—Medicare payments for physician services are determined by a relative value unit (RVU) multiplied by a conversion factor (CF). Relative value units were set up in 1992 by what is now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and they calculated the time it took a physician to complete a task or RVU and multiplied it by $32.00 (CF).³

Thirty years later—in 2022—the CF is $34.61. If the CF had increased with inflation, it would be $59.00. If the Proposed Rule is adopted, the 2023 fee schedule payment formula would decrease by 4.4% (to $33.08) relative to that of the 2022 fee schedule ($34.61), which is a decrease of 8.2% since 2019 ($36.04). This decrease is due to expiration of the 3% increase to Medicare fee schedule payments for 2022 required by the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act and the required budget neutrality adjustment required by changes in RVUs. Medicare physician payment has declined 22% from 2001 to 2022 (Figure 2).^4,5

The adjustments to the CF typically are made based on 3 factors: (1) the Medicare Economic Index; (2) expenditure target “performance adjustment”; and (3) miscellaneous adjustments, including those for “budget neutrality” required by law.

Medicare Physician Payments Compared With Other Provider Types and Inflation—The proposed Medicare physician payment policy is unsustainable for outpatient dermatologists. Practice overhead has increased markedly since 1992. Other service providers, such as those in skilled nursing facilities and hospitals (Figure 3), have received favorable payment increases compared with practice cost inflation and the Consumer Price Index.^3-6 Flat reimbursement affects all physicians who accept insurance, as even private insurers base their reimbursement on Medicare.

In addition, there are other issues resulting in decreased physician payments when evaluation and management services are reported with same-day procedures using modifier −25 as well as preserving or finding alternative strategies for 10- and 90-day global period payments for medical procedures. When Medicare cuts physician payments, dermatologists find it difficult to own and operate their own practices, resulting in health market consolidation, limited competition, increased health care costs, limited patient access to care, and decreased quality of health care.

Medicare Payment Reform—Medicare payment reform is necessary to stop annual payment cuts and create a stable predictable payment system that ensures patient access to quality, value-based care. Medicare physician payment reform needs to happen at a national level. The American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) is working with the House of Medicine and the medical specialty community to develop specific proposals, such as “Characteristics of a Rational Medicare Physician Payment System,” to reform Medicare’s payment system.⁷ Advocacy groups, including the AADA, have been working to mitigate the proposed 2023 cuts by engaging with Congress and urging them to act before these changes go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Make Advocacy Your New Year’s Resolution: AADA’s Top Advocacy Priorities

The AADA’s top priority is Medicare payment policies.³ In addition, the AADA is working on drug access and cost by cutting the bureaucratic red tape caused by prior authorization (PA) and step therapy policies. The AADA collaborates with manufacturers, the health care community, policymakers, private payers, pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers, and patients to minimize and/or eliminate barriers that patients face in accessing needed medications. Specifically, the AADA advocates for legislation that limits obstacles associated with health insurance step therapy requirements, streamlines PA, and prohibits mid-year formulary changes.⁸

Step therapy requires that patients first try a medication specified by the insurance company; the therapy must fail before the patient is placed on the medication originally prescribed by the provider. Regarding PA, the AADA tries to ensure that determinations are standardized, requires the speed of determinations to be quantified and minimized, and ensures that PA and appeals policies do not unduly burden physicians or patients in accessing optimal drug therapy.⁸

Another advocacy priority is telehealth. The AADA is advocating for legislation on expansion of telehealth in underserved areas and modifications to state licensure requirements, liability issues, and reimbursement for store-and-forward technology. The AADA is involved in protecting scope of practice, truth in advertising, and access to specialty care, as well as monitoring legislation and regulation concerning the potential environmental impact of sunscreen ingredients, indoor tanning restrictions, and skin cancer prevention.⁸

Advocacy Matters and Makes a Difference—It is important to learn about and support advocacy priorities and efforts and join forces to protect your practice. The AADA advocacy priorities are to protect the value of dermatology services, mobilize dermatologists for political action, ensure dermatologists can participate in new payment models, and strengthen the profession.⁹ Physician advocacy is no longer an elective pursuit. We need to be involved and engaged through our medical societies to help patients, communities, and ourselves. All of us are in it together, and a collaborative collective voice can make a difference. Take action, join the AADA, and contact Congress today to stop Medicare payment cuts (https://takeaction.aad.org/).

The residents of our program asked me to serve as their commencement speaker in June. Since I was retiring from my position as department chair, this touching honor seemed a fitting capstone for my career. It gave me the opportunity to reflect on the enormity of the changes that have occurred between my graduation from residency in 1983 and the current time, which is marked by disruption from the digital revolution and the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout this 40-year period, there were times of external global turmoil, economic instability, significant changes in the business of medicine, stressful changes in documentation of competency and certification, and the difficult transition to electronic medical records. Another epidemic—AIDS—changed surgical practices. During my residency, we did biopsies without wearing gloves or masks. Gloves were added to protect the person doing the procedure as well as to prevent spread of disease to other patients, not to reduce the infection rate for the patient undergoing the procedure. Of course, change in the last 40 years also occurred outside of work and included various familial stresses. The irritations of daily life easily mounted up to being overwhelming. However, I had gone to work every day for 40 years, seeking to do my best for my patients and my colleagues and the staff with whom I worked, sometimes feeling successful and sometimes feeling incompetent. Some days went smoothly, and some days were filled with challenges that I could not begin to imagine how I would solve. I have a habit of seeing problems rather than successes, which creates its own difficulties. I did, however, grab opportunities that continually improved my practice of medicine and allowed me to serve in several professional positions as well as in leadership positions of multiple professional societies. As I prepared the commencement address, I realized that the totality of my career was very satisfying.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of satisfying is “producing pleasure or contentment by providing what is needed or wanted.”¹ My use of the word means that my career over the long term has pleased me—maybe not some of the people I reported to, but rather me.

My approach to my career can be summarized in 3 words: purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

The first element is purpose. Job satisfaction generally is associated with work being aligned with values, an appreciation that you are accomplishing the purpose with which you set out on your journey. It is not associated with every day being wonderful and problem free or every task being completed without setbacks or complications. The reality of working is not that every moment brings pure happiness or that every task fulfills a passion. How does a person ensure that the days add up to be satisfying? Start with values. Why did you decide to pursue medical school? Some may have chosen it for economic security, but there are many ways to achieve economic security. Maybe being a physician feeds into the family lore, but families generally have broad ranges of acceptable careers. Maybe it appealed scientifically, but a PhD in biology also fulfills that interest. Maybe it is that you noticed respect for physicians in the community when you were growing up, but that is changing and does not represent an internal value anyway. Consider your values carefully, write them down, and keep them at the forefront of the day. Go back to them consciously any time you have a rough day and understand why you are doing what you are doing. When you are 55 years old and going through your umpteenth change in reimbursement process, go back to the day you decided on medicine as a career. Focus on your values as the grounding for your purpose. Also note that purpose is different than goals. Some goals will be reached, and some will not. Goals change with external realities and/ or internal factors. Purpose and values remain the same if we have thoughtfully identified them.

The second element is serendipity. Serendipity often is thought of as luck, as karma, as being in the right place at the right time. It feels random, and at first glance it appears that purpose and serendipity are complete opposites and do not intersect. Serendipity is, however, not just luck. It is an ability to distinguish events and observations in meaningful ways. It is a close relative of creativity and benefits from sloppiness, playfulness, tinkering, and discussion. It cannot exist in a vacuum. History is replete with serendipitous discoveries. It is thought that James Watson and Francis Crick would never have been able to elucidate the nature of DNA without sharing offices with people with whom they argued daily. In fact, figuring out the DNA structure was not even the main focus of their laboratories. It was just a side angle that several people loved to think about. Appreciating serendipity by being truly open to opportunities that are out on the wings brings experiences that are deeply rewarding even if not planned. I had no idea at all, no plan, no goal of serving as president of the American Academy of Dermatology or as Department Chair, and yet these happened. These experiences have allowed me to work on my purpose as I have defined it. How can you harness serendipity in your own life? My philosophy may be somewhat simple, but I think if you show up every day doing the best job you can at the tasks on hand, doors will appear, at odd intervals and in odd directions. You must be open enough and in tune with your purpose to an extent that you can sense the direction in which to turn and what doorways through which to walk.

The third element is curiosity. One definition is that curiosity is the motivation to learn new information. Another definition is that curiosity is a special form of information seeking distinguished by the fact that it is internally motivated. We are all familiar with intellectual curiosity. For example, a patient has a basal cell carcinoma on the upper back. What does the literature say about the cure rates of various treatments for that particular tumor? In addition, we can be curious about other things as well. Is it a really small tumor? How was it found and why is the patient anxious? Why does it make me irritated that the patient is worried about such a small, easily treated tumor? Or is it a large neglected tumor? Why was it not treated before? Why does it make me sad that it is so large? Why does it annoy me that I have a difficult situation to manage? Being able to define an emotional reaction by being curious about its presence helps us manage destructive responses and promote more positive outcomes. This curiosity is related to emotional intelligence and is mindfully harnessed by effective leaders. Curiosity will get you through tough days when your office team is stressed and the tough years that are complicated by professional and personal challenges.

Curiosity also will help you identify your purpose and harness serendipity, and so we come full circle with our 3 elements: purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

My wish for all of you is that when you are at the tail end of your career, you will look back and say, “This has been a great ride.” I am very grateful that I can acknowledge this for myself. I have been so fortunate to have found dermatology, where I can go to work every day making a difference for patients in a stimulating environment with good colleagues. One of my values is to try and make life better in some way for everyone around me, even if it is just a smile at the start of the workday. As I look back, this value has allowed me to meet interesting people, hear fascinating stories, make good friends, and have enduring relationships. I have held onto fellow travelers, and we have supported each other through tough times as well as celebrated together the good times.

Nurturing a satisfying career includes these essential fundamentals. First, accept the reality of constant change. Second, develop productive relationships with fellow travelers. And third and most importantly, go forth with purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

The residents of our program asked me to serve as their commencement speaker in June. Since I was retiring from my position as department chair, this touching honor seemed a fitting capstone for my career. It gave me the opportunity to reflect on the enormity of the changes that have occurred between my graduation from residency in 1983 and the current time, which is marked by disruption from the digital revolution and the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout this 40-year period, there were times of external global turmoil, economic instability, significant changes in the business of medicine, stressful changes in documentation of competency and certification, and the difficult transition to electronic medical records. Another epidemic—AIDS—changed surgical practices. During my residency, we did biopsies without wearing gloves or masks. Gloves were added to protect the person doing the procedure as well as to prevent spread of disease to other patients, not to reduce the infection rate for the patient undergoing the procedure. Of course, change in the last 40 years also occurred outside of work and included various familial stresses. The irritations of daily life easily mounted up to being overwhelming. However, I had gone to work every day for 40 years, seeking to do my best for my patients and my colleagues and the staff with whom I worked, sometimes feeling successful and sometimes feeling incompetent. Some days went smoothly, and some days were filled with challenges that I could not begin to imagine how I would solve. I have a habit of seeing problems rather than successes, which creates its own difficulties. I did, however, grab opportunities that continually improved my practice of medicine and allowed me to serve in several professional positions as well as in leadership positions of multiple professional societies. As I prepared the commencement address, I realized that the totality of my career was very satisfying.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of satisfying is “producing pleasure or contentment by providing what is needed or wanted.”¹ My use of the word means that my career over the long term has pleased me—maybe not some of the people I reported to, but rather me.

My approach to my career can be summarized in 3 words: purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

The first element is purpose. Job satisfaction generally is associated with work being aligned with values, an appreciation that you are accomplishing the purpose with which you set out on your journey. It is not associated with every day being wonderful and problem free or every task being completed without setbacks or complications. The reality of working is not that every moment brings pure happiness or that every task fulfills a passion. How does a person ensure that the days add up to be satisfying? Start with values. Why did you decide to pursue medical school? Some may have chosen it for economic security, but there are many ways to achieve economic security. Maybe being a physician feeds into the family lore, but families generally have broad ranges of acceptable careers. Maybe it appealed scientifically, but a PhD in biology also fulfills that interest. Maybe it is that you noticed respect for physicians in the community when you were growing up, but that is changing and does not represent an internal value anyway. Consider your values carefully, write them down, and keep them at the forefront of the day. Go back to them consciously any time you have a rough day and understand why you are doing what you are doing. When you are 55 years old and going through your umpteenth change in reimbursement process, go back to the day you decided on medicine as a career. Focus on your values as the grounding for your purpose. Also note that purpose is different than goals. Some goals will be reached, and some will not. Goals change with external realities and/ or internal factors. Purpose and values remain the same if we have thoughtfully identified them.

The second element is serendipity. Serendipity often is thought of as luck, as karma, as being in the right place at the right time. It feels random, and at first glance it appears that purpose and serendipity are complete opposites and do not intersect. Serendipity is, however, not just luck. It is an ability to distinguish events and observations in meaningful ways. It is a close relative of creativity and benefits from sloppiness, playfulness, tinkering, and discussion. It cannot exist in a vacuum. History is replete with serendipitous discoveries. It is thought that James Watson and Francis Crick would never have been able to elucidate the nature of DNA without sharing offices with people with whom they argued daily. In fact, figuring out the DNA structure was not even the main focus of their laboratories. It was just a side angle that several people loved to think about. Appreciating serendipity by being truly open to opportunities that are out on the wings brings experiences that are deeply rewarding even if not planned. I had no idea at all, no plan, no goal of serving as president of the American Academy of Dermatology or as Department Chair, and yet these happened. These experiences have allowed me to work on my purpose as I have defined it. How can you harness serendipity in your own life? My philosophy may be somewhat simple, but I think if you show up every day doing the best job you can at the tasks on hand, doors will appear, at odd intervals and in odd directions. You must be open enough and in tune with your purpose to an extent that you can sense the direction in which to turn and what doorways through which to walk.

The third element is curiosity. One definition is that curiosity is the motivation to learn new information. Another definition is that curiosity is a special form of information seeking distinguished by the fact that it is internally motivated. We are all familiar with intellectual curiosity. For example, a patient has a basal cell carcinoma on the upper back. What does the literature say about the cure rates of various treatments for that particular tumor? In addition, we can be curious about other things as well. Is it a really small tumor? How was it found and why is the patient anxious? Why does it make me irritated that the patient is worried about such a small, easily treated tumor? Or is it a large neglected tumor? Why was it not treated before? Why does it make me sad that it is so large? Why does it annoy me that I have a difficult situation to manage? Being able to define an emotional reaction by being curious about its presence helps us manage destructive responses and promote more positive outcomes. This curiosity is related to emotional intelligence and is mindfully harnessed by effective leaders. Curiosity will get you through tough days when your office team is stressed and the tough years that are complicated by professional and personal challenges.

Curiosity also will help you identify your purpose and harness serendipity, and so we come full circle with our 3 elements: purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

My wish for all of you is that when you are at the tail end of your career, you will look back and say, “This has been a great ride.” I am very grateful that I can acknowledge this for myself. I have been so fortunate to have found dermatology, where I can go to work every day making a difference for patients in a stimulating environment with good colleagues. One of my values is to try and make life better in some way for everyone around me, even if it is just a smile at the start of the workday. As I look back, this value has allowed me to meet interesting people, hear fascinating stories, make good friends, and have enduring relationships. I have held onto fellow travelers, and we have supported each other through tough times as well as celebrated together the good times.

Nurturing a satisfying career includes these essential fundamentals. First, accept the reality of constant change. Second, develop productive relationships with fellow travelers. And third and most importantly, go forth with purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

The residents of our program asked me to serve as their commencement speaker in June. Since I was retiring from my position as department chair, this touching honor seemed a fitting capstone for my career. It gave me the opportunity to reflect on the enormity of the changes that have occurred between my graduation from residency in 1983 and the current time, which is marked by disruption from the digital revolution and the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout this 40-year period, there were times of external global turmoil, economic instability, significant changes in the business of medicine, stressful changes in documentation of competency and certification, and the difficult transition to electronic medical records. Another epidemic—AIDS—changed surgical practices. During my residency, we did biopsies without wearing gloves or masks. Gloves were added to protect the person doing the procedure as well as to prevent spread of disease to other patients, not to reduce the infection rate for the patient undergoing the procedure. Of course, change in the last 40 years also occurred outside of work and included various familial stresses. The irritations of daily life easily mounted up to being overwhelming. However, I had gone to work every day for 40 years, seeking to do my best for my patients and my colleagues and the staff with whom I worked, sometimes feeling successful and sometimes feeling incompetent. Some days went smoothly, and some days were filled with challenges that I could not begin to imagine how I would solve. I have a habit of seeing problems rather than successes, which creates its own difficulties. I did, however, grab opportunities that continually improved my practice of medicine and allowed me to serve in several professional positions as well as in leadership positions of multiple professional societies. As I prepared the commencement address, I realized that the totality of my career was very satisfying.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of satisfying is “producing pleasure or contentment by providing what is needed or wanted.”¹ My use of the word means that my career over the long term has pleased me—maybe not some of the people I reported to, but rather me.

My approach to my career can be summarized in 3 words: purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

The first element is purpose. Job satisfaction generally is associated with work being aligned with values, an appreciation that you are accomplishing the purpose with which you set out on your journey. It is not associated with every day being wonderful and problem free or every task being completed without setbacks or complications. The reality of working is not that every moment brings pure happiness or that every task fulfills a passion. How does a person ensure that the days add up to be satisfying? Start with values. Why did you decide to pursue medical school? Some may have chosen it for economic security, but there are many ways to achieve economic security. Maybe being a physician feeds into the family lore, but families generally have broad ranges of acceptable careers. Maybe it appealed scientifically, but a PhD in biology also fulfills that interest. Maybe it is that you noticed respect for physicians in the community when you were growing up, but that is changing and does not represent an internal value anyway. Consider your values carefully, write them down, and keep them at the forefront of the day. Go back to them consciously any time you have a rough day and understand why you are doing what you are doing. When you are 55 years old and going through your umpteenth change in reimbursement process, go back to the day you decided on medicine as a career. Focus on your values as the grounding for your purpose. Also note that purpose is different than goals. Some goals will be reached, and some will not. Goals change with external realities and/ or internal factors. Purpose and values remain the same if we have thoughtfully identified them.

The second element is serendipity. Serendipity often is thought of as luck, as karma, as being in the right place at the right time. It feels random, and at first glance it appears that purpose and serendipity are complete opposites and do not intersect. Serendipity is, however, not just luck. It is an ability to distinguish events and observations in meaningful ways. It is a close relative of creativity and benefits from sloppiness, playfulness, tinkering, and discussion. It cannot exist in a vacuum. History is replete with serendipitous discoveries. It is thought that James Watson and Francis Crick would never have been able to elucidate the nature of DNA without sharing offices with people with whom they argued daily. In fact, figuring out the DNA structure was not even the main focus of their laboratories. It was just a side angle that several people loved to think about. Appreciating serendipity by being truly open to opportunities that are out on the wings brings experiences that are deeply rewarding even if not planned. I had no idea at all, no plan, no goal of serving as president of the American Academy of Dermatology or as Department Chair, and yet these happened. These experiences have allowed me to work on my purpose as I have defined it. How can you harness serendipity in your own life? My philosophy may be somewhat simple, but I think if you show up every day doing the best job you can at the tasks on hand, doors will appear, at odd intervals and in odd directions. You must be open enough and in tune with your purpose to an extent that you can sense the direction in which to turn and what doorways through which to walk.

The third element is curiosity. One definition is that curiosity is the motivation to learn new information. Another definition is that curiosity is a special form of information seeking distinguished by the fact that it is internally motivated. We are all familiar with intellectual curiosity. For example, a patient has a basal cell carcinoma on the upper back. What does the literature say about the cure rates of various treatments for that particular tumor? In addition, we can be curious about other things as well. Is it a really small tumor? How was it found and why is the patient anxious? Why does it make me irritated that the patient is worried about such a small, easily treated tumor? Or is it a large neglected tumor? Why was it not treated before? Why does it make me sad that it is so large? Why does it annoy me that I have a difficult situation to manage? Being able to define an emotional reaction by being curious about its presence helps us manage destructive responses and promote more positive outcomes. This curiosity is related to emotional intelligence and is mindfully harnessed by effective leaders. Curiosity will get you through tough days when your office team is stressed and the tough years that are complicated by professional and personal challenges.

Curiosity also will help you identify your purpose and harness serendipity, and so we come full circle with our 3 elements: purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

My wish for all of you is that when you are at the tail end of your career, you will look back and say, “This has been a great ride.” I am very grateful that I can acknowledge this for myself. I have been so fortunate to have found dermatology, where I can go to work every day making a difference for patients in a stimulating environment with good colleagues. One of my values is to try and make life better in some way for everyone around me, even if it is just a smile at the start of the workday. As I look back, this value has allowed me to meet interesting people, hear fascinating stories, make good friends, and have enduring relationships. I have held onto fellow travelers, and we have supported each other through tough times as well as celebrated together the good times.

Nurturing a satisfying career includes these essential fundamentals. First, accept the reality of constant change. Second, develop productive relationships with fellow travelers. And third and most importantly, go forth with purpose, serendipity, and curiosity.

Practice Gap

Biopsies, excisions, and other invasive cutaneous procedures are performed regularly in dermatology clinics and require placement of a bandage after the procedure. Postprocedural bandaging varies by the type of procedure performed, anatomic site, and the physician’s preference of materials. Dermatologists can be left with an overwhelming choice of supplies and little practical education, as bandaging methods are not routinely addressed in residency curricula. To address this concern, we provide a succinct list of basic materials that are versatile and easily adapted to encompass all bandaging needs for dermatology procedures (Table).

With these few components, one can create an array of distinct bandages to cover wounds as small as a shave biopsy to linear closures and basic flaps or grafts. Even traditionally difficult-to-bandage areas are easily addressed. Simple modifications of the basic materials are required for each bandage adaptation, as outlined below.

The Techniques

Shave and Punch Biopsy Sites—Layer (from bottom to top) the emollient of choice, a cut 4×4-inch gauze pad, and flexible polyester tape cut to the appropriate size (Figure 1). This simple bandage conforms well to any anatomic site and can replace an adhesive bandage, if desired.

Cutaneous Surgery Sites—Pressure bandages are recommended on cutaneous surgery sites. One of the most common closures performed in dermatology is the layered closure with dissolvable subcutaneous sutures and nondissolvable cutaneous sutures. When this closure is performed on the trunk and proximal extremities, undermining often is required to adequately approximate skin. This technique eliminates tension on the wound but can increase the risk for hematoma.¹ A pressure bandage left in place and kept dry for 48 hours after surgery helps eliminate the risk for postoperative bleeding.

To make a pressure bandage, layer (from bottom to top) the emollient of choice, a nonstick pad cut to size, folded 4×4-inch gauze pads, and flexible polyester tape (Figure 2). Our practice routinely utilizes the tape fanning technique² to impart equal and firm pressure over the wound.

Complex Sites—When making a pressure bandage for an anatomically complex site—the ear, nose, or lip—nonstick pads and 4×4-inch gauze pads can be cut and folded or rolled to match the size and shape of the wound. Flexible polyester tape then conforms to these custom bandage shapes, allowing maintenance of targeted wound pressure (Figure 3).

Dental rolls can be of assistance on these sites. For example, a dental roll placed in the postauricular sulcus prior to bandaging an ear maintains comfortable anatomic positioning. Rolls can be placed in the nose, maintaining its architecture while the wound heals and providing counterpressure for added hemostasis of wounds on the lateral nasal sidewall and ala. We recommend coating dental rolls in petrolatum prior to placement in the nares for ease of removal and patient comfort.

Distal Arms and Legs—Another layer of compression is added to pressure bandages on the distal upper and lower extremities using a fabric and elastic wrap (Figure 4). The extra layer keeps the bandage in place on the upper extremities while the patient continues their daily activities. It also helps prevent edema and pain in the lower extremities.

The degree of postoperative lower extremity swelling varies by patient and procedure performed but largely is inevitable with surgery on the leg, given the potential for superficial lymphatic disruption and the dependent position of the leg when standing. Elevation is always advised, but a well-wrapped, long-stretch elastic bandage provides extra support, especially if the patient has baseline venous insufficiency or needs to be on their feet during the day. The wrap is applied from the distal to the proximal leg with graded compression, overlapping by half with each rotation. The wrap is tightest near the ankle, with gradual and subtle easing of tension as it is placed superiorly.

Healing by Secondary Intention, Full-Thickness and Split-Thickness Skin Grafts, and Partial Wound Closure—These postoperative scenarios require bandages with appropriate pressure; however, dressings need to remain moist against the patient’s skin for comfortable removal, which can be accomplished with petrolatum-impregnated gauze with or without antibacterial properties. The gauze is folded to the appropriate size and placed directly on the wound or sutured in place (Figure 5). A pressure bandage is then applied on top of the gauze.

Practice Implications

The universal bandage kit and instructions for its adaptation to accommodate multiple clinical needs can serve as a helpful resource for dermatologists and their staff.

Practice Gap

Biopsies, excisions, and other invasive cutaneous procedures are performed regularly in dermatology clinics and require placement of a bandage after the procedure. Postprocedural bandaging varies by the type of procedure performed, anatomic site, and the physician’s preference of materials. Dermatologists can be left with an overwhelming choice of supplies and little practical education, as bandaging methods are not routinely addressed in residency curricula. To address this concern, we provide a succinct list of basic materials that are versatile and easily adapted to encompass all bandaging needs for dermatology procedures (Table).

With these few components, one can create an array of distinct bandages to cover wounds as small as a shave biopsy to linear closures and basic flaps or grafts. Even traditionally difficult-to-bandage areas are easily addressed. Simple modifications of the basic materials are required for each bandage adaptation, as outlined below.

The Techniques

Shave and Punch Biopsy Sites—Layer (from bottom to top) the emollient of choice, a cut 4×4-inch gauze pad, and flexible polyester tape cut to the appropriate size (Figure 1). This simple bandage conforms well to any anatomic site and can replace an adhesive bandage, if desired.

Cutaneous Surgery Sites—Pressure bandages are recommended on cutaneous surgery sites. One of the most common closures performed in dermatology is the layered closure with dissolvable subcutaneous sutures and nondissolvable cutaneous sutures. When this closure is performed on the trunk and proximal extremities, undermining often is required to adequately approximate skin. This technique eliminates tension on the wound but can increase the risk for hematoma.¹ A pressure bandage left in place and kept dry for 48 hours after surgery helps eliminate the risk for postoperative bleeding.

To make a pressure bandage, layer (from bottom to top) the emollient of choice, a nonstick pad cut to size, folded 4×4-inch gauze pads, and flexible polyester tape (Figure 2). Our practice routinely utilizes the tape fanning technique² to impart equal and firm pressure over the wound.

Complex Sites—When making a pressure bandage for an anatomically complex site—the ear, nose, or lip—nonstick pads and 4×4-inch gauze pads can be cut and folded or rolled to match the size and shape of the wound. Flexible polyester tape then conforms to these custom bandage shapes, allowing maintenance of targeted wound pressure (Figure 3).

Dental rolls can be of assistance on these sites. For example, a dental roll placed in the postauricular sulcus prior to bandaging an ear maintains comfortable anatomic positioning. Rolls can be placed in the nose, maintaining its architecture while the wound heals and providing counterpressure for added hemostasis of wounds on the lateral nasal sidewall and ala. We recommend coating dental rolls in petrolatum prior to placement in the nares for ease of removal and patient comfort.

Distal Arms and Legs—Another layer of compression is added to pressure bandages on the distal upper and lower extremities using a fabric and elastic wrap (Figure 4). The extra layer keeps the bandage in place on the upper extremities while the patient continues their daily activities. It also helps prevent edema and pain in the lower extremities.

The degree of postoperative lower extremity swelling varies by patient and procedure performed but largely is inevitable with surgery on the leg, given the potential for superficial lymphatic disruption and the dependent position of the leg when standing. Elevation is always advised, but a well-wrapped, long-stretch elastic bandage provides extra support, especially if the patient has baseline venous insufficiency or needs to be on their feet during the day. The wrap is applied from the distal to the proximal leg with graded compression, overlapping by half with each rotation. The wrap is tightest near the ankle, with gradual and subtle easing of tension as it is placed superiorly.

Healing by Secondary Intention, Full-Thickness and Split-Thickness Skin Grafts, and Partial Wound Closure—These postoperative scenarios require bandages with appropriate pressure; however, dressings need to remain moist against the patient’s skin for comfortable removal, which can be accomplished with petrolatum-impregnated gauze with or without antibacterial properties. The gauze is folded to the appropriate size and placed directly on the wound or sutured in place (Figure 5). A pressure bandage is then applied on top of the gauze.

Practice Implications

The universal bandage kit and instructions for its adaptation to accommodate multiple clinical needs can serve as a helpful resource for dermatologists and their staff.

Practice Gap

Biopsies, excisions, and other invasive cutaneous procedures are performed regularly in dermatology clinics and require placement of a bandage after the procedure. Postprocedural bandaging varies by the type of procedure performed, anatomic site, and the physician’s preference of materials. Dermatologists can be left with an overwhelming choice of supplies and little practical education, as bandaging methods are not routinely addressed in residency curricula. To address this concern, we provide a succinct list of basic materials that are versatile and easily adapted to encompass all bandaging needs for dermatology procedures (Table).

With these few components, one can create an array of distinct bandages to cover wounds as small as a shave biopsy to linear closures and basic flaps or grafts. Even traditionally difficult-to-bandage areas are easily addressed. Simple modifications of the basic materials are required for each bandage adaptation, as outlined below.

The Techniques

Shave and Punch Biopsy Sites—Layer (from bottom to top) the emollient of choice, a cut 4×4-inch gauze pad, and flexible polyester tape cut to the appropriate size (Figure 1). This simple bandage conforms well to any anatomic site and can replace an adhesive bandage, if desired.

Cutaneous Surgery Sites—Pressure bandages are recommended on cutaneous surgery sites. One of the most common closures performed in dermatology is the layered closure with dissolvable subcutaneous sutures and nondissolvable cutaneous sutures. When this closure is performed on the trunk and proximal extremities, undermining often is required to adequately approximate skin. This technique eliminates tension on the wound but can increase the risk for hematoma.¹ A pressure bandage left in place and kept dry for 48 hours after surgery helps eliminate the risk for postoperative bleeding.

To make a pressure bandage, layer (from bottom to top) the emollient of choice, a nonstick pad cut to size, folded 4×4-inch gauze pads, and flexible polyester tape (Figure 2). Our practice routinely utilizes the tape fanning technique² to impart equal and firm pressure over the wound.

Complex Sites—When making a pressure bandage for an anatomically complex site—the ear, nose, or lip—nonstick pads and 4×4-inch gauze pads can be cut and folded or rolled to match the size and shape of the wound. Flexible polyester tape then conforms to these custom bandage shapes, allowing maintenance of targeted wound pressure (Figure 3).

Dental rolls can be of assistance on these sites. For example, a dental roll placed in the postauricular sulcus prior to bandaging an ear maintains comfortable anatomic positioning. Rolls can be placed in the nose, maintaining its architecture while the wound heals and providing counterpressure for added hemostasis of wounds on the lateral nasal sidewall and ala. We recommend coating dental rolls in petrolatum prior to placement in the nares for ease of removal and patient comfort.

Distal Arms and Legs—Another layer of compression is added to pressure bandages on the distal upper and lower extremities using a fabric and elastic wrap (Figure 4). The extra layer keeps the bandage in place on the upper extremities while the patient continues their daily activities. It also helps prevent edema and pain in the lower extremities.

The degree of postoperative lower extremity swelling varies by patient and procedure performed but largely is inevitable with surgery on the leg, given the potential for superficial lymphatic disruption and the dependent position of the leg when standing. Elevation is always advised, but a well-wrapped, long-stretch elastic bandage provides extra support, especially if the patient has baseline venous insufficiency or needs to be on their feet during the day. The wrap is applied from the distal to the proximal leg with graded compression, overlapping by half with each rotation. The wrap is tightest near the ankle, with gradual and subtle easing of tension as it is placed superiorly.

Healing by Secondary Intention, Full-Thickness and Split-Thickness Skin Grafts, and Partial Wound Closure—These postoperative scenarios require bandages with appropriate pressure; however, dressings need to remain moist against the patient’s skin for comfortable removal, which can be accomplished with petrolatum-impregnated gauze with or without antibacterial properties. The gauze is folded to the appropriate size and placed directly on the wound or sutured in place (Figure 5). A pressure bandage is then applied on top of the gauze.

Practice Implications

The universal bandage kit and instructions for its adaptation to accommodate multiple clinical needs can serve as a helpful resource for dermatologists and their staff.

Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)(also known as razor bumps or shaving bumps)¹ is a skin condition that consists of papules resulting from ingrown hairs.² In more severe cases, papules become pustules, then abscesses, which can cause scarring.^1,2 The condition can be distressing for patients, with considerable negative impact on their daily lives.³ The condition also is associated with shaving-related stinging, burning, pruritus, and cuts on the skin.⁴

Pseudofolliculitis barbae is most common in men of African descent due to the curved nature of the hair follicle,^2,5,6 with an estimated prevalence in this population of 45% to 83%,^1,6 but it can affect men of other ethnicities.⁷ A genetic polymorphism in a gene encoding a keratin specific to the hair follicle also has been found to predispose some individuals to PFB.⁵ When hair from a curved or destabilized hair follicle is cut to form a sharp tip, it is susceptible to extrafollicular and/or transfollicular penetration,^5,6,8 as illustrated in Figure 1.

With extrafollicular or transfollicular penetration, the hair shaft re-enters or retracts into the dermis, triggering an inflammatory response that may be exacerbated by subsequent shaving.² Few studies have been published that aim to identify potential shaving solutions for individuals with PFB who elect to or need to continue shaving.

A new razor technology comprising 2 blades separated by a bridge feature has been designed specifically for men with razor bumps (SkinGuard [Procter & Gamble]). The SkinGuard razor redistributes shaving pressure so that there is less force from the blades on the skin and inflamed lesions than without the bridge, as seen in Figure 2. The razor has been designed to protect the skin from the blades, thereby minimizing the occurrence of new lesions and allowing existing lesions to heal.

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the appearance of males with razor bumps and shaving irritation when using the new razor technology in a regular shaving routine. The secondary objective was to measure satisfaction of the shaving experience when using the new razor by means of assessing itching, burning, and stinging using the participant global severity assessment (PGSA) and the impact on quality of life (QOL) measures.

Methods

Participants—Eligible participants were male, aged 20 to 60 years, and had clinically diagnosed PFB as well as symptoms of skin irritation from shaving. Participants were recruited from a dermatology clinic and via institutional review board–approved advertising.

Those eligible for inclusion in the study had a shaving routine that comprised shaving at least 3 times a week using a wet-shave, blade-razor technique accompanied by only a shave gel or foam. In addition, eligible participants had mild to moderate symptoms of skin irritation (a minimum of 10 razor bumps) from shaving based on investigator global severity assessment (IGSA) rating scales and were willing to shave at least 5 times a week during the study period. Participants could continue certain topical and systemic interventions for their skin.

Participants were excluded from the study if they had an underlying inflammatory disease that could manifest with a skin rash or were using any of these medications: topical benzoyl peroxide, topical clindamycin, topical retinoids, or oral antibiotics.

Study Design—A prospective, open-label study was conducted over a period of 12 weeks at a single site in the United States. Investigators instructed participants to shave 5 or more times per week with the test razor and to keep a daily shaving journal to track the number of shaves and compliance.

Participants were evaluated at the baseline screening visit, then at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Evaluations included an investigator lesion count, the IGSA, and the PGSA. The PGSA was used to evaluate subjective clinical measurements (ie, indicate how much postshave burning/itching/stinging the participant was experiencing). The impact of shaving on daily life was evaluated at the baseline screening visit and at 12 weeks with the Participant Quality of Life Questionnaire comprised of 22 QOL statements. eTable 1 summarizes the investigator assessments used in the study, and eTable 2 summarizes the participant self-assessments. Both tables include the scale details and results interpretation for each assessment.

The study was approved by the local institutional review board, and all participants provided written informed consent in accordance with Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.

Study Visits—At the baseline screening visit, participants provided written informed consent and completed a prestudy shave questionnaire concerning shaving preparations, techniques, and opinions. Participants also provided a medical history, including prior and concomitant medications, and were evaluated using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Investigators explained adverse event reporting to the participants. Participants were provided with an adequate supply of test razors for the 12-week period.

Data Analysis—Means and SDs were calculated for the study measures assessed at each visit. Analyses were performed evaluating change from baseline in repeated-measures analysis of variance models. These models were adjusted for baseline levels of the outcome measure and visit number. The magnitude of change from baseline was evaluated against a null hypothesis of 0% change. This longitudinal model adjusted for any potential differing baseline levels among participants. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05. SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used for all analyses.

Results

In total, 21 individuals were enrolled, and 20 completed the study. Participants who completed the study were non-Hispanic Black (n=10); non-Hispanic White (n=8); Asian (n=1); or White, American Indian (n=1). All participants adhered to the protocol and reported shaving at least 5 times a week for 12 weeks using the test razor. One participant was removed after he was found to have a history of sarcoidosis, making him ineligible for the study. No study-related adverse events were reported.

Papules and Pustules—Over the course of the 12-week study, the papule count decreased significantly from baseline. Results from the investigator lesion count (see eTable 1 for key) indicated that by week 12—adjusted for number of papules at baseline—the mean percentage reduction was estimated to be 59.6% (P<.0001). A significant decrease in papule count also was observed between the baseline visit and week 8 (57.2%; P<.0001). A nonsignificant decrease was observed at week 4 (18.9%; P=.17). Only 3 participants presented with pustules at baseline, and the pustule count remained low over the course of the study. No significant change was noted at week 12 vs baseline (P=.98). Notably, there was no increase in pustule count at the end of the study compared with baseline (Table 1).

Skin Appearance—An improvement in the skin’s appearance over the course of the study from baseline was consistent with an improvement in the IGSA. The IGSA score significantly improved from a mean (SD) measurement of 2.5 (0.6) (indicating mild to moderate inflammation) at baseline to 1.4 (0.8) at week 8 (P<.0001) and 1.2 (1.1) (indicating mild inflammation to almost clear) at week 12 (P<.0001). The observed decrease in severity of skin condition and skin inflammation is shown in Figure 3.

Significant improvements were observed in every category of the PGSA at week 12 vs baseline (P≤.0007)(Table 2). At week 12, there was a significant (P≤.05) increase from baseline in participant agreement for all 22 QOL metrics describing positive shave experience, achieving results, skin feel, self-confidence, and social interactions (Figure 4), which supports the positive impact of adopting a shaving regimen with the test razor. Notably, after using the test razor for 12 weeks, men reported that they were more likely to agree with the statements “my skin felt smooth,” “my skin felt good to touch,” and “I was able to achieve a consistently good shave.” Other meaningful increases occurred in “shaving was something I looked forward to doing,” “others thought I looked clean cut,” “I looked my best for my family/others/work,” and “I felt comfortable/confident getting closer to others.” All QOL statements are shown in Figure 4.

Improvement With Novel Razor Technology—For the first time, frequent use of a novel razor technology designed specifically for men with PFB was found to significantly improve skin appearance, shave satisfaction, and QOL after 12 weeks vs baseline in participants clinically diagnosed with PFB. In men with shave-related skin irritation and razor bumps who typically wet-shaved with a razor at least 3 times a week, use of the test razor with their regular shaving preparation product 5 or more times per week for 12 weeks was associated with significant improvements from baseline in investigator lesion count, IGSA, PGSA, and Participant Quality of Life Questionnaire measurements.

Study strengths included the quantification of the change in the number of lesions and the degree of severity by a trained investigator in a prospective clinical study along with an assessment of the impact on participant QOL. A lack of a control arm could be considered a limitation of the study; however, study end points were evaluated compared with baseline, with each participant serving as their own control. Spontaneous resolution of the condition with their standard routine was considered highly unlikely in these participants; therefore, in the absence of any other changes, improvements were attributed to regular use of the test product over the course of the study. The results presented here provide strong support for the effectiveness of the new razor technology in improving the appearance of men with razor bumps and shaving irritation.

Hair Removal Tools for the Management of PFB—Although various tools and techniques have been proposed in the past for men with PFB, the current test razor technology provided unique benefits, including improvements in appearance and severity of the condition as well as a positive impact on QOL. In 1979, Conte and Lawrence⁹ evaluated the effect of using an electric hair clipper and twice-daily use of a skin-cleansing pad on the occurrence of PFB. Participants (n=96) allowed their beards to grow out for 1 month, after which they started shaving with an electric clipper with a triple O head. The authors reported a favorable response in 95% (91/96) of cases. However, the electric clippers left 1 mm of beard at the skin level,⁹ which may not be acceptable for those who prefer a clean-shaven appearance.⁶

A prospective survey of 22 men of African descent with PFB found use of a safety razor was preferred over an electric razor.¹⁰ The single-arm study evaluated use of a foil-guarded shaver (single-razor blade) in the management of PFB based on investigator lesion counts and a participant questionnaire. Participants were asked to shave at least every other day and use a specially designed preshave brush. A mean reduction in lesion counts was observed at 2 weeks (29.6%), 4 weeks (38.1%), and 6 weeks (47.1%); statistical significance was not reported. At 6 weeks, 77.3% (17/22) of participants judged the foil-guarded shaver to be superior to other shaving devices in controlling their razor bumps, and 90.9% (20/22) indicated they would recommend the shaver to others with PFB. The authors hypothesized that the guard buffered the skin from the blade, which might otherwise facilitate the penetration of ingrowing hairs and cause trauma to existing lesions.

The mean reduction in lesion count from baseline observed at week 4 was greater in the study with the foil-guarded shaver and preshave brush (38% reduction)¹⁰ than in our study (19% reduction in papule count). Different methodologies, use of a preshave brush in the earlier study, and a difference in lesion severity at baseline may have contributed to this difference. The study with the foil-guarded shaver concluded after 6 weeks, and there was a 47.1% reduction in lesion counts vs baseline.¹⁰ In contrast, the current study continued for 12 weeks, and a 59.6% reduction in lesion counts was reported. Participants from both studies reported an improved shaving experience compared with their usual practice,¹⁰ though only the current study explored the positive impact of the new razor technology on participant QOL.

Preventing Hairs From Being Cut Too Close—The closeness of the shave is believed to be a contributory factor in the development and persistence of PFB^6,8,11 based on a tendency for the distal portion of tightly curled hair shafts to re-enter the skin after shaving via transfollicular penetration.¹² Inclusion of a buffer in the razor between the sharp blades and the skin has been proposed to prevent hairs from being cut too close and causing transfollicular penetration.¹²

In the test razor used in the current study, the bridge technology acted as the buffer to prevent hairs from being cut too close to the skin and to reduce blade contact with the skin (Figure 2). Having only 2 blades also reduced the closeness of the shave compared with 5-bladed technologies,¹³ as each hair can only be pulled and cut up to a maximum of 2 times per shaving stroke. Notably, this did not impact the participants’ QOL scores related to achieving a close shave or skin feeling smooth; both attributes were significantly improved at 12 weeks vs baseline (Figure 4).

By reducing blade contact with the skin, the bridge technology in the test razor was designed to prevent excessive force from being applied to the skin through the blades. Reduced blade loading minimizes contact with and impact on sensitive skin.¹⁴ Additional design features of the test razor to minimize the impact of shaving on the skin include treatment of the 2 blades with low-friction coatings, which allows the blades to cut through the beard hair with minimal force, helping to reduce the tug-and-pull effect that may otherwise result in irritation and inflammation.^13,15 Lubrication strips before and after the blades in the test razor reduce friction between the blades and the skin to further protect the skin from the blades.¹⁵

Shaving With Multiblade Razors Does Not Exacerbate PFB—In a 1-week, split-faced, randomized study of 45 Black men, shaving with a manual 3-bladed razor was compared with use of 3 different chemical depilatory formulations.¹⁶ Shaving every other day for 1 week with the manual razor resulted in more papule formation but less irritation than use of the depilatories. The authors concluded that a study with longer duration was needed to explore the impact of shaving on papule formation in participants with a history of PFB.¹⁶

In 2013, an investigator-blinded study of 90 African American men with PFB compared the impact of different shaving regimens on the signs and symptoms of PFB over a 12-week period.⁴ Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: (1) shaving 2 to 3 times per week with a triple-blade razor and standard products (control group); (2) shaving daily with a 5-bladed razor and standard products; and (3) shaving daily with a 5-bladed razor and “advanced” specific pre- and postshave products. The researchers found that the mean papule measurement significantly decreased from baseline in the advanced (P=.01) and control (P=.016) groups. Between-group comparison revealed no significant differences for papule or pustule count among each arm. For the investigator-graded severity, the change from baseline was significant for all 3 groups (P≤.04); however, the differences among groups were not significant. Importantly, these data demonstrated that PFB was not exacerbated by multiblade razors used as part of a daily shaving regimen.⁴

The findings of the current study were consistent with those of Daniel et al⁴ in that there was no exacerbation of the signs and symptoms of PFB associated with daily shaving. However, rather than requiring participants to change their entire shaving regimen, the present study only required a change of razor type. Moreover, the use of the new razor technology significantly decreased papule counts at week 12 vs the baseline measurement (P<.0001) and was associated with an improvement in subjective skin severity measurements. The participants in the present study reported significantly less burning, stinging, and itching after using the test product for 12 weeks (P<.0001).

Impact of Treatment on QOL—The current study further expanded on prior findings by combining these clinical end points with the QOL results to assess the test razor’s impact on participants’ lives. Results showed that over the course of 12 weeks, the new razor technology significantly improved the participants’ QOL in all questions related to shaving experience, achieving results, skin feel, self-confidence, and social interactions. The significant improvement in QOL included statements such as “shaving was a pleasant experience,” “I was able to achieve a consistently good shave,” and “my skin felt smooth.” Participants also reported improvements in meaningful categories such as “my shave made me feel attractive” and “I felt comfortable/confident getting closer to others.” As the current study showed, a shave regimen has the potential to change participants’ overall assessment of their QOL, a variable that must not be overlooked.

Conclusion

In men with clinically diagnosed PFB, regular shaving with a razor designed to protect the skin was found to significantly decrease lesion counts, increase shave satisfaction, and improve QOL after 12 weeks compared with their usual shaving practice (baseline measures). This razor technology provides another option to help manage PFB for men who wish to or need to continue shaving.

Acknowledgments—The clinical study was funded by the Procter & Gamble Company. Editorial writing assistance, supported financially by the Procter & Gamble Company, was provided by Gill McFeat, PhD, of McFeat Science Ltd (Devon, United Kingdom).

Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)(also known as razor bumps or shaving bumps)¹ is a skin condition that consists of papules resulting from ingrown hairs.² In more severe cases, papules become pustules, then abscesses, which can cause scarring.^1,2 The condition can be distressing for patients, with considerable negative impact on their daily lives.³ The condition also is associated with shaving-related stinging, burning, pruritus, and cuts on the skin.⁴

Pseudofolliculitis barbae is most common in men of African descent due to the curved nature of the hair follicle,^2,5,6 with an estimated prevalence in this population of 45% to 83%,^1,6 but it can affect men of other ethnicities.⁷ A genetic polymorphism in a gene encoding a keratin specific to the hair follicle also has been found to predispose some individuals to PFB.⁵ When hair from a curved or destabilized hair follicle is cut to form a sharp tip, it is susceptible to extrafollicular and/or transfollicular penetration,^5,6,8 as illustrated in Figure 1.

With extrafollicular or transfollicular penetration, the hair shaft re-enters or retracts into the dermis, triggering an inflammatory response that may be exacerbated by subsequent shaving.² Few studies have been published that aim to identify potential shaving solutions for individuals with PFB who elect to or need to continue shaving.

A new razor technology comprising 2 blades separated by a bridge feature has been designed specifically for men with razor bumps (SkinGuard [Procter & Gamble]). The SkinGuard razor redistributes shaving pressure so that there is less force from the blades on the skin and inflamed lesions than without the bridge, as seen in Figure 2. The razor has been designed to protect the skin from the blades, thereby minimizing the occurrence of new lesions and allowing existing lesions to heal.

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the appearance of males with razor bumps and shaving irritation when using the new razor technology in a regular shaving routine. The secondary objective was to measure satisfaction of the shaving experience when using the new razor by means of assessing itching, burning, and stinging using the participant global severity assessment (PGSA) and the impact on quality of life (QOL) measures.

Methods

Participants—Eligible participants were male, aged 20 to 60 years, and had clinically diagnosed PFB as well as symptoms of skin irritation from shaving. Participants were recruited from a dermatology clinic and via institutional review board–approved advertising.

Those eligible for inclusion in the study had a shaving routine that comprised shaving at least 3 times a week using a wet-shave, blade-razor technique accompanied by only a shave gel or foam. In addition, eligible participants had mild to moderate symptoms of skin irritation (a minimum of 10 razor bumps) from shaving based on investigator global severity assessment (IGSA) rating scales and were willing to shave at least 5 times a week during the study period. Participants could continue certain topical and systemic interventions for their skin.

Participants were excluded from the study if they had an underlying inflammatory disease that could manifest with a skin rash or were using any of these medications: topical benzoyl peroxide, topical clindamycin, topical retinoids, or oral antibiotics.

Study Design—A prospective, open-label study was conducted over a period of 12 weeks at a single site in the United States. Investigators instructed participants to shave 5 or more times per week with the test razor and to keep a daily shaving journal to track the number of shaves and compliance.

Participants were evaluated at the baseline screening visit, then at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Evaluations included an investigator lesion count, the IGSA, and the PGSA. The PGSA was used to evaluate subjective clinical measurements (ie, indicate how much postshave burning/itching/stinging the participant was experiencing). The impact of shaving on daily life was evaluated at the baseline screening visit and at 12 weeks with the Participant Quality of Life Questionnaire comprised of 22 QOL statements. eTable 1 summarizes the investigator assessments used in the study, and eTable 2 summarizes the participant self-assessments. Both tables include the scale details and results interpretation for each assessment.

The study was approved by the local institutional review board, and all participants provided written informed consent in accordance with Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.

Study Visits—At the baseline screening visit, participants provided written informed consent and completed a prestudy shave questionnaire concerning shaving preparations, techniques, and opinions. Participants also provided a medical history, including prior and concomitant medications, and were evaluated using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Investigators explained adverse event reporting to the participants. Participants were provided with an adequate supply of test razors for the 12-week period.

Data Analysis—Means and SDs were calculated for the study measures assessed at each visit. Analyses were performed evaluating change from baseline in repeated-measures analysis of variance models. These models were adjusted for baseline levels of the outcome measure and visit number. The magnitude of change from baseline was evaluated against a null hypothesis of 0% change. This longitudinal model adjusted for any potential differing baseline levels among participants. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05. SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used for all analyses.

Results

In total, 21 individuals were enrolled, and 20 completed the study. Participants who completed the study were non-Hispanic Black (n=10); non-Hispanic White (n=8); Asian (n=1); or White, American Indian (n=1). All participants adhered to the protocol and reported shaving at least 5 times a week for 12 weeks using the test razor. One participant was removed after he was found to have a history of sarcoidosis, making him ineligible for the study. No study-related adverse events were reported.

Papules and Pustules—Over the course of the 12-week study, the papule count decreased significantly from baseline. Results from the investigator lesion count (see eTable 1 for key) indicated that by week 12—adjusted for number of papules at baseline—the mean percentage reduction was estimated to be 59.6% (P<.0001). A significant decrease in papule count also was observed between the baseline visit and week 8 (57.2%; P<.0001). A nonsignificant decrease was observed at week 4 (18.9%; P=.17). Only 3 participants presented with pustules at baseline, and the pustule count remained low over the course of the study. No significant change was noted at week 12 vs baseline (P=.98). Notably, there was no increase in pustule count at the end of the study compared with baseline (Table 1).

Skin Appearance—An improvement in the skin’s appearance over the course of the study from baseline was consistent with an improvement in the IGSA. The IGSA score significantly improved from a mean (SD) measurement of 2.5 (0.6) (indicating mild to moderate inflammation) at baseline to 1.4 (0.8) at week 8 (P<.0001) and 1.2 (1.1) (indicating mild inflammation to almost clear) at week 12 (P<.0001). The observed decrease in severity of skin condition and skin inflammation is shown in Figure 3.

Significant improvements were observed in every category of the PGSA at week 12 vs baseline (P≤.0007)(Table 2). At week 12, there was a significant (P≤.05) increase from baseline in participant agreement for all 22 QOL metrics describing positive shave experience, achieving results, skin feel, self-confidence, and social interactions (Figure 4), which supports the positive impact of adopting a shaving regimen with the test razor. Notably, after using the test razor for 12 weeks, men reported that they were more likely to agree with the statements “my skin felt smooth,” “my skin felt good to touch,” and “I was able to achieve a consistently good shave.” Other meaningful increases occurred in “shaving was something I looked forward to doing,” “others thought I looked clean cut,” “I looked my best for my family/others/work,” and “I felt comfortable/confident getting closer to others.” All QOL statements are shown in Figure 4.

Improvement With Novel Razor Technology—For the first time, frequent use of a novel razor technology designed specifically for men with PFB was found to significantly improve skin appearance, shave satisfaction, and QOL after 12 weeks vs baseline in participants clinically diagnosed with PFB. In men with shave-related skin irritation and razor bumps who typically wet-shaved with a razor at least 3 times a week, use of the test razor with their regular shaving preparation product 5 or more times per week for 12 weeks was associated with significant improvements from baseline in investigator lesion count, IGSA, PGSA, and Participant Quality of Life Questionnaire measurements.

Study strengths included the quantification of the change in the number of lesions and the degree of severity by a trained investigator in a prospective clinical study along with an assessment of the impact on participant QOL. A lack of a control arm could be considered a limitation of the study; however, study end points were evaluated compared with baseline, with each participant serving as their own control. Spontaneous resolution of the condition with their standard routine was considered highly unlikely in these participants; therefore, in the absence of any other changes, improvements were attributed to regular use of the test product over the course of the study. The results presented here provide strong support for the effectiveness of the new razor technology in improving the appearance of men with razor bumps and shaving irritation.

Hair Removal Tools for the Management of PFB—Although various tools and techniques have been proposed in the past for men with PFB, the current test razor technology provided unique benefits, including improvements in appearance and severity of the condition as well as a positive impact on QOL. In 1979, Conte and Lawrence⁹ evaluated the effect of using an electric hair clipper and twice-daily use of a skin-cleansing pad on the occurrence of PFB. Participants (n=96) allowed their beards to grow out for 1 month, after which they started shaving with an electric clipper with a triple O head. The authors reported a favorable response in 95% (91/96) of cases. However, the electric clippers left 1 mm of beard at the skin level,⁹ which may not be acceptable for those who prefer a clean-shaven appearance.⁶

A prospective survey of 22 men of African descent with PFB found use of a safety razor was preferred over an electric razor.¹⁰ The single-arm study evaluated use of a foil-guarded shaver (single-razor blade) in the management of PFB based on investigator lesion counts and a participant questionnaire. Participants were asked to shave at least every other day and use a specially designed preshave brush. A mean reduction in lesion counts was observed at 2 weeks (29.6%), 4 weeks (38.1%), and 6 weeks (47.1%); statistical significance was not reported. At 6 weeks, 77.3% (17/22) of participants judged the foil-guarded shaver to be superior to other shaving devices in controlling their razor bumps, and 90.9% (20/22) indicated they would recommend the shaver to others with PFB. The authors hypothesized that the guard buffered the skin from the blade, which might otherwise facilitate the penetration of ingrowing hairs and cause trauma to existing lesions.

The mean reduction in lesion count from baseline observed at week 4 was greater in the study with the foil-guarded shaver and preshave brush (38% reduction)¹⁰ than in our study (19% reduction in papule count). Different methodologies, use of a preshave brush in the earlier study, and a difference in lesion severity at baseline may have contributed to this difference. The study with the foil-guarded shaver concluded after 6 weeks, and there was a 47.1% reduction in lesion counts vs baseline.¹⁰ In contrast, the current study continued for 12 weeks, and a 59.6% reduction in lesion counts was reported. Participants from both studies reported an improved shaving experience compared with their usual practice,¹⁰ though only the current study explored the positive impact of the new razor technology on participant QOL.

Preventing Hairs From Being Cut Too Close—The closeness of the shave is believed to be a contributory factor in the development and persistence of PFB^6,8,11 based on a tendency for the distal portion of tightly curled hair shafts to re-enter the skin after shaving via transfollicular penetration.¹² Inclusion of a buffer in the razor between the sharp blades and the skin has been proposed to prevent hairs from being cut too close and causing transfollicular penetration.¹²

In the test razor used in the current study, the bridge technology acted as the buffer to prevent hairs from being cut too close to the skin and to reduce blade contact with the skin (Figure 2). Having only 2 blades also reduced the closeness of the shave compared with 5-bladed technologies,¹³ as each hair can only be pulled and cut up to a maximum of 2 times per shaving stroke. Notably, this did not impact the participants’ QOL scores related to achieving a close shave or skin feeling smooth; both attributes were significantly improved at 12 weeks vs baseline (Figure 4).

By reducing blade contact with the skin, the bridge technology in the test razor was designed to prevent excessive force from being applied to the skin through the blades. Reduced blade loading minimizes contact with and impact on sensitive skin.¹⁴ Additional design features of the test razor to minimize the impact of shaving on the skin include treatment of the 2 blades with low-friction coatings, which allows the blades to cut through the beard hair with minimal force, helping to reduce the tug-and-pull effect that may otherwise result in irritation and inflammation.^13,15 Lubrication strips before and after the blades in the test razor reduce friction between the blades and the skin to further protect the skin from the blades.¹⁵

Shaving With Multiblade Razors Does Not Exacerbate PFB—In a 1-week, split-faced, randomized study of 45 Black men, shaving with a manual 3-bladed razor was compared with use of 3 different chemical depilatory formulations.¹⁶ Shaving every other day for 1 week with the manual razor resulted in more papule formation but less irritation than use of the depilatories. The authors concluded that a study with longer duration was needed to explore the impact of shaving on papule formation in participants with a history of PFB.¹⁶

In 2013, an investigator-blinded study of 90 African American men with PFB compared the impact of different shaving regimens on the signs and symptoms of PFB over a 12-week period.⁴ Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: (1) shaving 2 to 3 times per week with a triple-blade razor and standard products (control group); (2) shaving daily with a 5-bladed razor and standard products; and (3) shaving daily with a 5-bladed razor and “advanced” specific pre- and postshave products. The researchers found that the mean papule measurement significantly decreased from baseline in the advanced (P=.01) and control (P=.016) groups. Between-group comparison revealed no significant differences for papule or pustule count among each arm. For the investigator-graded severity, the change from baseline was significant for all 3 groups (P≤.04); however, the differences among groups were not significant. Importantly, these data demonstrated that PFB was not exacerbated by multiblade razors used as part of a daily shaving regimen.⁴

The findings of the current study were consistent with those of Daniel et al⁴ in that there was no exacerbation of the signs and symptoms of PFB associated with daily shaving. However, rather than requiring participants to change their entire shaving regimen, the present study only required a change of razor type. Moreover, the use of the new razor technology significantly decreased papule counts at week 12 vs the baseline measurement (P<.0001) and was associated with an improvement in subjective skin severity measurements. The participants in the present study reported significantly less burning, stinging, and itching after using the test product for 12 weeks (P<.0001).

Impact of Treatment on QOL—The current study further expanded on prior findings by combining these clinical end points with the QOL results to assess the test razor’s impact on participants’ lives. Results showed that over the course of 12 weeks, the new razor technology significantly improved the participants’ QOL in all questions related to shaving experience, achieving results, skin feel, self-confidence, and social interactions. The significant improvement in QOL included statements such as “shaving was a pleasant experience,” “I was able to achieve a consistently good shave,” and “my skin felt smooth.” Participants also reported improvements in meaningful categories such as “my shave made me feel attractive” and “I felt comfortable/confident getting closer to others.” As the current study showed, a shave regimen has the potential to change participants’ overall assessment of their QOL, a variable that must not be overlooked.

Conclusion

In men with clinically diagnosed PFB, regular shaving with a razor designed to protect the skin was found to significantly decrease lesion counts, increase shave satisfaction, and improve QOL after 12 weeks compared with their usual shaving practice (baseline measures). This razor technology provides another option to help manage PFB for men who wish to or need to continue shaving.

Acknowledgments—The clinical study was funded by the Procter & Gamble Company. Editorial writing assistance, supported financially by the Procter & Gamble Company, was provided by Gill McFeat, PhD, of McFeat Science Ltd (Devon, United Kingdom).

Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)(also known as razor bumps or shaving bumps)¹ is a skin condition that consists of papules resulting from ingrown hairs.² In more severe cases, papules become pustules, then abscesses, which can cause scarring.^1,2 The condition can be distressing for patients, with considerable negative impact on their daily lives.³ The condition also is associated with shaving-related stinging, burning, pruritus, and cuts on the skin.⁴

Pseudofolliculitis barbae is most common in men of African descent due to the curved nature of the hair follicle,^2,5,6 with an estimated prevalence in this population of 45% to 83%,^1,6 but it can affect men of other ethnicities.⁷ A genetic polymorphism in a gene encoding a keratin specific to the hair follicle also has been found to predispose some individuals to PFB.⁵ When hair from a curved or destabilized hair follicle is cut to form a sharp tip, it is susceptible to extrafollicular and/or transfollicular penetration,^5,6,8 as illustrated in Figure 1.

With extrafollicular or transfollicular penetration, the hair shaft re-enters or retracts into the dermis, triggering an inflammatory response that may be exacerbated by subsequent shaving.² Few studies have been published that aim to identify potential shaving solutions for individuals with PFB who elect to or need to continue shaving.

A new razor technology comprising 2 blades separated by a bridge feature has been designed specifically for men with razor bumps (SkinGuard [Procter & Gamble]). The SkinGuard razor redistributes shaving pressure so that there is less force from the blades on the skin and inflamed lesions than without the bridge, as seen in Figure 2. The razor has been designed to protect the skin from the blades, thereby minimizing the occurrence of new lesions and allowing existing lesions to heal.

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the appearance of males with razor bumps and shaving irritation when using the new razor technology in a regular shaving routine. The secondary objective was to measure satisfaction of the shaving experience when using the new razor by means of assessing itching, burning, and stinging using the participant global severity assessment (PGSA) and the impact on quality of life (QOL) measures.

Methods

Participants—Eligible participants were male, aged 20 to 60 years, and had clinically diagnosed PFB as well as symptoms of skin irritation from shaving. Participants were recruited from a dermatology clinic and via institutional review board–approved advertising.

Those eligible for inclusion in the study had a shaving routine that comprised shaving at least 3 times a week using a wet-shave, blade-razor technique accompanied by only a shave gel or foam. In addition, eligible participants had mild to moderate symptoms of skin irritation (a minimum of 10 razor bumps) from shaving based on investigator global severity assessment (IGSA) rating scales and were willing to shave at least 5 times a week during the study period. Participants could continue certain topical and systemic interventions for their skin.

Participants were excluded from the study if they had an underlying inflammatory disease that could manifest with a skin rash or were using any of these medications: topical benzoyl peroxide, topical clindamycin, topical retinoids, or oral antibiotics.

Study Design—A prospective, open-label study was conducted over a period of 12 weeks at a single site in the United States. Investigators instructed participants to shave 5 or more times per week with the test razor and to keep a daily shaving journal to track the number of shaves and compliance.

Participants were evaluated at the baseline screening visit, then at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Evaluations included an investigator lesion count, the IGSA, and the PGSA. The PGSA was used to evaluate subjective clinical measurements (ie, indicate how much postshave burning/itching/stinging the participant was experiencing). The impact of shaving on daily life was evaluated at the baseline screening visit and at 12 weeks with the Participant Quality of Life Questionnaire comprised of 22 QOL statements. eTable 1 summarizes the investigator assessments used in the study, and eTable 2 summarizes the participant self-assessments. Both tables include the scale details and results interpretation for each assessment.

The study was approved by the local institutional review board, and all participants provided written informed consent in accordance with Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.

Study Visits—At the baseline screening visit, participants provided written informed consent and completed a prestudy shave questionnaire concerning shaving preparations, techniques, and opinions. Participants also provided a medical history, including prior and concomitant medications, and were evaluated using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Investigators explained adverse event reporting to the participants. Participants were provided with an adequate supply of test razors for the 12-week period.

Data Analysis—Means and SDs were calculated for the study measures assessed at each visit. Analyses were performed evaluating change from baseline in repeated-measures analysis of variance models. These models were adjusted for baseline levels of the outcome measure and visit number. The magnitude of change from baseline was evaluated against a null hypothesis of 0% change. This longitudinal model adjusted for any potential differing baseline levels among participants. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05. SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used for all analyses.

Results

In total, 21 individuals were enrolled, and 20 completed the study. Participants who completed the study were non-Hispanic Black (n=10); non-Hispanic White (n=8); Asian (n=1); or White, American Indian (n=1). All participants adhered to the protocol and reported shaving at least 5 times a week for 12 weeks using the test razor. One participant was removed after he was found to have a history of sarcoidosis, making him ineligible for the study. No study-related adverse events were reported.

Papules and Pustules—Over the course of the 12-week study, the papule count decreased significantly from baseline. Results from the investigator lesion count (see eTable 1 for key) indicated that by week 12—adjusted for number of papules at baseline—the mean percentage reduction was estimated to be 59.6% (P<.0001). A significant decrease in papule count also was observed between the baseline visit and week 8 (57.2%; P<.0001). A nonsignificant decrease was observed at week 4 (18.9%; P=.17). Only 3 participants presented with pustules at baseline, and the pustule count remained low over the course of the study. No significant change was noted at week 12 vs baseline (P=.98). Notably, there was no increase in pustule count at the end of the study compared with baseline (Table 1).

Skin Appearance—An improvement in the skin’s appearance over the course of the study from baseline was consistent with an improvement in the IGSA. The IGSA score significantly improved from a mean (SD) measurement of 2.5 (0.6) (indicating mild to moderate inflammation) at baseline to 1.4 (0.8) at week 8 (P<.0001) and 1.2 (1.1) (indicating mild inflammation to almost clear) at week 12 (P<.0001). The observed decrease in severity of skin condition and skin inflammation is shown in Figure 3.

Significant improvements were observed in every category of the PGSA at week 12 vs baseline (P≤.0007)(Table 2). At week 12, there was a significant (P≤.05) increase from baseline in participant agreement for all 22 QOL metrics describing positive shave experience, achieving results, skin feel, self-confidence, and social interactions (Figure 4), which supports the positive impact of adopting a shaving regimen with the test razor. Notably, after using the test razor for 12 weeks, men reported that they were more likely to agree with the statements “my skin felt smooth,” “my skin felt good to touch,” and “I was able to achieve a consistently good shave.” Other meaningful increases occurred in “shaving was something I looked forward to doing,” “others thought I looked clean cut,” “I looked my best for my family/others/work,” and “I felt comfortable/confident getting closer to others.” All QOL statements are shown in Figure 4.

Improvement With Novel Razor Technology—For the first time, frequent use of a novel razor technology designed specifically for men with PFB was found to significantly improve skin appearance, shave satisfaction, and QOL after 12 weeks vs baseline in participants clinically diagnosed with PFB. In men with shave-related skin irritation and razor bumps who typically wet-shaved with a razor at least 3 times a week, use of the test razor with their regular shaving preparation product 5 or more times per week for 12 weeks was associated with significant improvements from baseline in investigator lesion count, IGSA, PGSA, and Participant Quality of Life Questionnaire measurements.

Study strengths included the quantification of the change in the number of lesions and the degree of severity by a trained investigator in a prospective clinical study along with an assessment of the impact on participant QOL. A lack of a control arm could be considered a limitation of the study; however, study end points were evaluated compared with baseline, with each participant serving as their own control. Spontaneous resolution of the condition with their standard routine was considered highly unlikely in these participants; therefore, in the absence of any other changes, improvements were attributed to regular use of the test product over the course of the study. The results presented here provide strong support for the effectiveness of the new razor technology in improving the appearance of men with razor bumps and shaving irritation.

Hair Removal Tools for the Management of PFB—Although various tools and techniques have been proposed in the past for men with PFB, the current test razor technology provided unique benefits, including improvements in appearance and severity of the condition as well as a positive impact on QOL. In 1979, Conte and Lawrence⁹ evaluated the effect of using an electric hair clipper and twice-daily use of a skin-cleansing pad on the occurrence of PFB. Participants (n=96) allowed their beards to grow out for 1 month, after which they started shaving with an electric clipper with a triple O head. The authors reported a favorable response in 95% (91/96) of cases. However, the electric clippers left 1 mm of beard at the skin level,⁹ which may not be acceptable for those who prefer a clean-shaven appearance.⁶

A prospective survey of 22 men of African descent with PFB found use of a safety razor was preferred over an electric razor.¹⁰ The single-arm study evaluated use of a foil-guarded shaver (single-razor blade) in the management of PFB based on investigator lesion counts and a participant questionnaire. Participants were asked to shave at least every other day and use a specially designed preshave brush. A mean reduction in lesion counts was observed at 2 weeks (29.6%), 4 weeks (38.1%), and 6 weeks (47.1%); statistical significance was not reported. At 6 weeks, 77.3% (17/22) of participants judged the foil-guarded shaver to be superior to other shaving devices in controlling their razor bumps, and 90.9% (20/22) indicated they would recommend the shaver to others with PFB. The authors hypothesized that the guard buffered the skin from the blade, which might otherwise facilitate the penetration of ingrowing hairs and cause trauma to existing lesions.

The mean reduction in lesion count from baseline observed at week 4 was greater in the study with the foil-guarded shaver and preshave brush (38% reduction)¹⁰ than in our study (19% reduction in papule count). Different methodologies, use of a preshave brush in the earlier study, and a difference in lesion severity at baseline may have contributed to this difference. The study with the foil-guarded shaver concluded after 6 weeks, and there was a 47.1% reduction in lesion counts vs baseline.¹⁰ In contrast, the current study continued for 12 weeks, and a 59.6% reduction in lesion counts was reported. Participants from both studies reported an improved shaving experience compared with their usual practice,¹⁰ though only the current study explored the positive impact of the new razor technology on participant QOL.

Preventing Hairs From Being Cut Too Close—The closeness of the shave is believed to be a contributory factor in the development and persistence of PFB^6,8,11 based on a tendency for the distal portion of tightly curled hair shafts to re-enter the skin after shaving via transfollicular penetration.¹² Inclusion of a buffer in the razor between the sharp blades and the skin has been proposed to prevent hairs from being cut too close and causing transfollicular penetration.¹²

In the test razor used in the current study, the bridge technology acted as the buffer to prevent hairs from being cut too close to the skin and to reduce blade contact with the skin (Figure 2). Having only 2 blades also reduced the closeness of the shave compared with 5-bladed technologies,¹³ as each hair can only be pulled and cut up to a maximum of 2 times per shaving stroke. Notably, this did not impact the participants’ QOL scores related to achieving a close shave or skin feeling smooth; both attributes were significantly improved at 12 weeks vs baseline (Figure 4).

By reducing blade contact with the skin, the bridge technology in the test razor was designed to prevent excessive force from being applied to the skin through the blades. Reduced blade loading minimizes contact with and impact on sensitive skin.¹⁴ Additional design features of the test razor to minimize the impact of shaving on the skin include treatment of the 2 blades with low-friction coatings, which allows the blades to cut through the beard hair with minimal force, helping to reduce the tug-and-pull effect that may otherwise result in irritation and inflammation.^13,15 Lubrication strips before and after the blades in the test razor reduce friction between the blades and the skin to further protect the skin from the blades.¹⁵

Shaving With Multiblade Razors Does Not Exacerbate PFB—In a 1-week, split-faced, randomized study of 45 Black men, shaving with a manual 3-bladed razor was compared with use of 3 different chemical depilatory formulations.¹⁶ Shaving every other day for 1 week with the manual razor resulted in more papule formation but less irritation than use of the depilatories. The authors concluded that a study with longer duration was needed to explore the impact of shaving on papule formation in participants with a history of PFB.¹⁶

In 2013, an investigator-blinded study of 90 African American men with PFB compared the impact of different shaving regimens on the signs and symptoms of PFB over a 12-week period.⁴ Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: (1) shaving 2 to 3 times per week with a triple-blade razor and standard products (control group); (2) shaving daily with a 5-bladed razor and standard products; and (3) shaving daily with a 5-bladed razor and “advanced” specific pre- and postshave products. The researchers found that the mean papule measurement significantly decreased from baseline in the advanced (P=.01) and control (P=.016) groups. Between-group comparison revealed no significant differences for papule or pustule count among each arm. For the investigator-graded severity, the change from baseline was significant for all 3 groups (P≤.04); however, the differences among groups were not significant. Importantly, these data demonstrated that PFB was not exacerbated by multiblade razors used as part of a daily shaving regimen.⁴

The findings of the current study were consistent with those of Daniel et al⁴ in that there was no exacerbation of the signs and symptoms of PFB associated with daily shaving. However, rather than requiring participants to change their entire shaving regimen, the present study only required a change of razor type. Moreover, the use of the new razor technology significantly decreased papule counts at week 12 vs the baseline measurement (P<.0001) and was associated with an improvement in subjective skin severity measurements. The participants in the present study reported significantly less burning, stinging, and itching after using the test product for 12 weeks (P<.0001).

Impact of Treatment on QOL—The current study further expanded on prior findings by combining these clinical end points with the QOL results to assess the test razor’s impact on participants’ lives. Results showed that over the course of 12 weeks, the new razor technology significantly improved the participants’ QOL in all questions related to shaving experience, achieving results, skin feel, self-confidence, and social interactions. The significant improvement in QOL included statements such as “shaving was a pleasant experience,” “I was able to achieve a consistently good shave,” and “my skin felt smooth.” Participants also reported improvements in meaningful categories such as “my shave made me feel attractive” and “I felt comfortable/confident getting closer to others.” As the current study showed, a shave regimen has the potential to change participants’ overall assessment of their QOL, a variable that must not be overlooked.

Conclusion

In men with clinically diagnosed PFB, regular shaving with a razor designed to protect the skin was found to significantly decrease lesion counts, increase shave satisfaction, and improve QOL after 12 weeks compared with their usual shaving practice (baseline measures). This razor technology provides another option to help manage PFB for men who wish to or need to continue shaving.

Acknowledgments—The clinical study was funded by the Procter & Gamble Company. Editorial writing assistance, supported financially by the Procter & Gamble Company, was provided by Gill McFeat, PhD, of McFeat Science Ltd (Devon, United Kingdom).

Nearly half of patients discharged from a hospital had inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, suggests a retrospective analysis of an Israeli health care database that showed no improvements in prescribing patterns over time.

The research was published online in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.

First author Orly Sneh-Arbib, MD, division of gastroenterology and liver disease, Clalit Health Services, Talpiot, Jerusalem, said in an interview that she and her co-authors were “very surprised” that the rates of inappropriate prescribing remained so high, especially as they had discussed the adverse effects of the drugs numerous times during departmental meetings.

She believes that, for many clinicians, handing out a prescription for PPIs has become a habit, with the thought being: “Just take this; it’s like a vitamin.”

In the paper, the researchers write, “Undoubtedly, more action is needed to raise physicians’ knowledge and attention to the subject while providing automated and standardized technology-based tools to reduce inappropriate PPI use using an acceptable algorithm.”

For the study, Dr. Sneh-Arbib and her colleagues developed an algorithm to assess inappropriate PPI prescribing in almost 4,000 internal medicine patients. To try to limit future overprescribing, their algorithm is now included in the clinical records system.

Consequently, every time a clinician tries to prescribe a PPI, they have to confirm that there is a valid indication for doing so, with the aim of adding an “extra step in the process,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said.
 

Clear but complex PPI indications

There are a small, well-defined number of indications for long-term PPI use, the authors write. The indications include prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, maintenance treatment after healing of erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiplatelet agents in patients with increased bleeding risk, and maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The authors also note that the “appropriateness of PPIs is complex,” with multiple factors to consider for long-term PPI use, including complex drug combinations and medical history.

But having seen patients in their 30s prescribed PPIs “just because of taking steroids or aspirin,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said she wanted to investigate further.

To examine the rate of inappropriate long-term PPI prescription on discharge from internal medicine departments, the team conducted a retrospective analysis of adults admitted to their institution for the first 6 months of 2014 and the first 6 months of 2017.

They included all patients prescribed PPIs on discharge with a recommendation for long-term use and excluded those who were transferred between departments or who had a hospital stay longer than 3 months.

Information on age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, current and past diagnoses including all relevant gastrointestinal diagnoses, Charlson comorbidity index, and medications on admission and discharge were recorded.
 

Guidelines for use of PPIs

To assess inappropriate PPI prescribing, the team searched for published recommendations on long-term use, Dr. Sneh-Arbib said. They developed an algorithm based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline, “Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management.”

The guideline is “not perfect,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said, but it was suitable. The team then randomly chose 100 patients from their records to validate the resulting algorithm, finding an accuracy of 96%.

The full analysis included 3,982 patients, of whom 74% were aged 65 years or older, and 50.8% were women. PPIs were first prescribed before hospital admission in 92.4% of cases.

The researchers found that the overall rate of inappropriate PPI prescriptions was 44.3%, a figure that was stable between the two the study periods. In 2014, the rate of inappropriate use was 43.2%, and it was 45.6% in 2017, a nonsignificant difference.

Inappropriate PPIs were higher (68.1%) in patients younger than 65 years, compared with those aged 65 years and older (36%).

The researchers analyzed factors associated with inappropriate PPIs, first excluding 448 patients with clear gastrointestinal indications.

In the majority of cases, the inappropriate PPI prescriptions occurred in patients who were not taking dual antiplatelet treatment (89.4%), in younger patients who were taking aspirin only (8.6%), and in patients receiving a single antiplatelet agent other than aspirin (1.9%), according to multivariate analysis.

Overall, 42.4% of patients classified as inappropriate PPI use were not using aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelets, antiaggregants, anticoagulants, or steroids, the researchers found.

They also note that most patients in the study (92.3%) had received PPIs before admission, prescribed by their general practitioner or during a previous hospitalization. This raises concerns about unneeded continuation of the drugs and lack of review by clinicians, they write.
 

PPI deprescribing

Approached for comment, Adrienna Jirik, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization that “PPI overprescription is a common problem worldwide, with the United States being no exception.”

They are “one of the most prescribed medications in the world, with several formulations readily available as an over-the-counter medication,” she added.

Dr. Jirik, who was not involved with the study, said that the algorithm used is “on par with the United States clinical practice guidelines for PPI use” and a “great start to initiate an encounter with a patient on PPIs in the outpatient setting to review the indications and to de-escalate and deprescribe therapy.”

Indeed, the American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update on deprescribing PPIs.

“It may be useful to incorporate a version of this algorithm as a ‘hard stop’ on some outpatient EMR [electronic medical record] templates to remind providers to address this issue prior to closing an encounter,” Dr. Jirik added.

She noted, however, that tackling any medication reconciliation is a very important but difficult and time-consuming task.

“Education is definitely key for both primary and subspecialty providers,” Dr. Jirik said. “If patients have been on a long-term PPI, the inpatient provider can suggest a plan for de-escalation based on practice guidelines and arrange proper outpatient follow-up for eventual deprescribing.”

No funding was declared. The authors and Dr. Jirik report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly half of patients discharged from a hospital had inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, suggests a retrospective analysis of an Israeli health care database that showed no improvements in prescribing patterns over time.

The research was published online in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.

First author Orly Sneh-Arbib, MD, division of gastroenterology and liver disease, Clalit Health Services, Talpiot, Jerusalem, said in an interview that she and her co-authors were “very surprised” that the rates of inappropriate prescribing remained so high, especially as they had discussed the adverse effects of the drugs numerous times during departmental meetings.

She believes that, for many clinicians, handing out a prescription for PPIs has become a habit, with the thought being: “Just take this; it’s like a vitamin.”

In the paper, the researchers write, “Undoubtedly, more action is needed to raise physicians’ knowledge and attention to the subject while providing automated and standardized technology-based tools to reduce inappropriate PPI use using an acceptable algorithm.”

For the study, Dr. Sneh-Arbib and her colleagues developed an algorithm to assess inappropriate PPI prescribing in almost 4,000 internal medicine patients. To try to limit future overprescribing, their algorithm is now included in the clinical records system.

Consequently, every time a clinician tries to prescribe a PPI, they have to confirm that there is a valid indication for doing so, with the aim of adding an “extra step in the process,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said.
 

Clear but complex PPI indications

There are a small, well-defined number of indications for long-term PPI use, the authors write. The indications include prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, maintenance treatment after healing of erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiplatelet agents in patients with increased bleeding risk, and maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The authors also note that the “appropriateness of PPIs is complex,” with multiple factors to consider for long-term PPI use, including complex drug combinations and medical history.

But having seen patients in their 30s prescribed PPIs “just because of taking steroids or aspirin,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said she wanted to investigate further.

To examine the rate of inappropriate long-term PPI prescription on discharge from internal medicine departments, the team conducted a retrospective analysis of adults admitted to their institution for the first 6 months of 2014 and the first 6 months of 2017.

They included all patients prescribed PPIs on discharge with a recommendation for long-term use and excluded those who were transferred between departments or who had a hospital stay longer than 3 months.

Information on age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, current and past diagnoses including all relevant gastrointestinal diagnoses, Charlson comorbidity index, and medications on admission and discharge were recorded.
 

Guidelines for use of PPIs

To assess inappropriate PPI prescribing, the team searched for published recommendations on long-term use, Dr. Sneh-Arbib said. They developed an algorithm based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline, “Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management.”

The guideline is “not perfect,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said, but it was suitable. The team then randomly chose 100 patients from their records to validate the resulting algorithm, finding an accuracy of 96%.

The full analysis included 3,982 patients, of whom 74% were aged 65 years or older, and 50.8% were women. PPIs were first prescribed before hospital admission in 92.4% of cases.

The researchers found that the overall rate of inappropriate PPI prescriptions was 44.3%, a figure that was stable between the two the study periods. In 2014, the rate of inappropriate use was 43.2%, and it was 45.6% in 2017, a nonsignificant difference.

Inappropriate PPIs were higher (68.1%) in patients younger than 65 years, compared with those aged 65 years and older (36%).

The researchers analyzed factors associated with inappropriate PPIs, first excluding 448 patients with clear gastrointestinal indications.

In the majority of cases, the inappropriate PPI prescriptions occurred in patients who were not taking dual antiplatelet treatment (89.4%), in younger patients who were taking aspirin only (8.6%), and in patients receiving a single antiplatelet agent other than aspirin (1.9%), according to multivariate analysis.

Overall, 42.4% of patients classified as inappropriate PPI use were not using aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelets, antiaggregants, anticoagulants, or steroids, the researchers found.

They also note that most patients in the study (92.3%) had received PPIs before admission, prescribed by their general practitioner or during a previous hospitalization. This raises concerns about unneeded continuation of the drugs and lack of review by clinicians, they write.
 

PPI deprescribing

Approached for comment, Adrienna Jirik, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization that “PPI overprescription is a common problem worldwide, with the United States being no exception.”

They are “one of the most prescribed medications in the world, with several formulations readily available as an over-the-counter medication,” she added.

Dr. Jirik, who was not involved with the study, said that the algorithm used is “on par with the United States clinical practice guidelines for PPI use” and a “great start to initiate an encounter with a patient on PPIs in the outpatient setting to review the indications and to de-escalate and deprescribe therapy.”

Indeed, the American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update on deprescribing PPIs.

“It may be useful to incorporate a version of this algorithm as a ‘hard stop’ on some outpatient EMR [electronic medical record] templates to remind providers to address this issue prior to closing an encounter,” Dr. Jirik added.

She noted, however, that tackling any medication reconciliation is a very important but difficult and time-consuming task.

“Education is definitely key for both primary and subspecialty providers,” Dr. Jirik said. “If patients have been on a long-term PPI, the inpatient provider can suggest a plan for de-escalation based on practice guidelines and arrange proper outpatient follow-up for eventual deprescribing.”

No funding was declared. The authors and Dr. Jirik report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly half of patients discharged from a hospital had inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, suggests a retrospective analysis of an Israeli health care database that showed no improvements in prescribing patterns over time.

The research was published online in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.

First author Orly Sneh-Arbib, MD, division of gastroenterology and liver disease, Clalit Health Services, Talpiot, Jerusalem, said in an interview that she and her co-authors were “very surprised” that the rates of inappropriate prescribing remained so high, especially as they had discussed the adverse effects of the drugs numerous times during departmental meetings.

She believes that, for many clinicians, handing out a prescription for PPIs has become a habit, with the thought being: “Just take this; it’s like a vitamin.”

In the paper, the researchers write, “Undoubtedly, more action is needed to raise physicians’ knowledge and attention to the subject while providing automated and standardized technology-based tools to reduce inappropriate PPI use using an acceptable algorithm.”

For the study, Dr. Sneh-Arbib and her colleagues developed an algorithm to assess inappropriate PPI prescribing in almost 4,000 internal medicine patients. To try to limit future overprescribing, their algorithm is now included in the clinical records system.

Consequently, every time a clinician tries to prescribe a PPI, they have to confirm that there is a valid indication for doing so, with the aim of adding an “extra step in the process,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said.
 

Clear but complex PPI indications

There are a small, well-defined number of indications for long-term PPI use, the authors write. The indications include prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, maintenance treatment after healing of erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiplatelet agents in patients with increased bleeding risk, and maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The authors also note that the “appropriateness of PPIs is complex,” with multiple factors to consider for long-term PPI use, including complex drug combinations and medical history.

But having seen patients in their 30s prescribed PPIs “just because of taking steroids or aspirin,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said she wanted to investigate further.

To examine the rate of inappropriate long-term PPI prescription on discharge from internal medicine departments, the team conducted a retrospective analysis of adults admitted to their institution for the first 6 months of 2014 and the first 6 months of 2017.

They included all patients prescribed PPIs on discharge with a recommendation for long-term use and excluded those who were transferred between departments or who had a hospital stay longer than 3 months.

Information on age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, current and past diagnoses including all relevant gastrointestinal diagnoses, Charlson comorbidity index, and medications on admission and discharge were recorded.
 

Guidelines for use of PPIs

To assess inappropriate PPI prescribing, the team searched for published recommendations on long-term use, Dr. Sneh-Arbib said. They developed an algorithm based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline, “Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management.”

The guideline is “not perfect,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said, but it was suitable. The team then randomly chose 100 patients from their records to validate the resulting algorithm, finding an accuracy of 96%.

The full analysis included 3,982 patients, of whom 74% were aged 65 years or older, and 50.8% were women. PPIs were first prescribed before hospital admission in 92.4% of cases.

The researchers found that the overall rate of inappropriate PPI prescriptions was 44.3%, a figure that was stable between the two the study periods. In 2014, the rate of inappropriate use was 43.2%, and it was 45.6% in 2017, a nonsignificant difference.

Inappropriate PPIs were higher (68.1%) in patients younger than 65 years, compared with those aged 65 years and older (36%).

The researchers analyzed factors associated with inappropriate PPIs, first excluding 448 patients with clear gastrointestinal indications.

In the majority of cases, the inappropriate PPI prescriptions occurred in patients who were not taking dual antiplatelet treatment (89.4%), in younger patients who were taking aspirin only (8.6%), and in patients receiving a single antiplatelet agent other than aspirin (1.9%), according to multivariate analysis.

Overall, 42.4% of patients classified as inappropriate PPI use were not using aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelets, antiaggregants, anticoagulants, or steroids, the researchers found.

They also note that most patients in the study (92.3%) had received PPIs before admission, prescribed by their general practitioner or during a previous hospitalization. This raises concerns about unneeded continuation of the drugs and lack of review by clinicians, they write.
 

PPI deprescribing

Approached for comment, Adrienna Jirik, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization that “PPI overprescription is a common problem worldwide, with the United States being no exception.”

They are “one of the most prescribed medications in the world, with several formulations readily available as an over-the-counter medication,” she added.

Dr. Jirik, who was not involved with the study, said that the algorithm used is “on par with the United States clinical practice guidelines for PPI use” and a “great start to initiate an encounter with a patient on PPIs in the outpatient setting to review the indications and to de-escalate and deprescribe therapy.”

Indeed, the American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update on deprescribing PPIs.

“It may be useful to incorporate a version of this algorithm as a ‘hard stop’ on some outpatient EMR [electronic medical record] templates to remind providers to address this issue prior to closing an encounter,” Dr. Jirik added.

She noted, however, that tackling any medication reconciliation is a very important but difficult and time-consuming task.

“Education is definitely key for both primary and subspecialty providers,” Dr. Jirik said. “If patients have been on a long-term PPI, the inpatient provider can suggest a plan for de-escalation based on practice guidelines and arrange proper outpatient follow-up for eventual deprescribing.”

No funding was declared. The authors and Dr. Jirik report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being male, being older, and having a clear intent to die were among the key independent predictors of psychiatric hospital admission after self-harm, based on data from more than 1,800 individuals.

Clinicians who assess suicidal patients in the emergency department setting face the challenge of whether to admit the patient to inpatient or outpatient care, and data on predictors of compulsory admission are limited, wrote Laurent Michaud, MD, of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and colleagues.

To better identify predictors of hospitalization after self-harm, the researchers reviewed data from 1,832 patients aged 18 years and older admitted to four emergency departments in Switzerland between December 2016 and November 2019 .

Self-harm (SH) was defined in this study as “all nonfatal intentional acts of self-poisoning or self-injury, irrespective of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation,” the researchers noted. The study included 2,142 episodes of self-harm.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They compared episodes followed by any hospitalization and those with outpatient follow-up (1,083 episodes vs. 1,059 episodes) and episodes followed by compulsory hospitalization (357 episodes) with all other episodes followed by either outpatient care or voluntary hospitalization (1,785 episodes).

Overall, women were significantly more likely to be referred to outpatient follow-up compared with men (61.8% vs. 38.1%), and hospitalized patients were significantly older than outpatients (mean age of 41 years vs. 36 years, P < .001 for both).

“Not surprisingly, major psychopathological conditions such as depression, mania, dementia, and schizophrenia were predictive of hospitalization,” the researchers noted.

Other sociodemographic factors associated with hospitalization included living alone, no children, problematic socioeconomic status, and unemployment. Clinical factors associated with hospitalization included physical pain, more lethal suicide attempt method, and clear intent to die.

In a multivariate analysis, independent predictors of any hospitalization included male gender, older age, assessment in the Neuchatel location vs. Lausanne, depression vs. personality disorders, substance use, or anxiety disorder, difficult socioeconomic status, a clear vs. unclear intent to die, and a serious suicide attempt vs. less serious.

Differences in hospitalization based on hospital setting was a striking finding, the researchers wrote in their discussion. These differences may be largely explained by the organization of local mental health services and specific institutional cultures; the workload of staff and availability of beds also may have played a role in decisions to hospitalize, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on the realization level of a self-harm episode and significant events such as a breakup, the researchers explained. Other limitations included missing data, multiple analyses that could increase the risk of false positives, the reliance on clinical diagnosis rather than formal instruments, and the cross-sectional study design, they said.

However, the results have clinical implications, as the clinical factors identified could be used to target subgroups of suicidal populations and refine treatment strategies, they concluded.

The study was supported by institutional funding and the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Being male, being older, and having a clear intent to die were among the key independent predictors of psychiatric hospital admission after self-harm, based on data from more than 1,800 individuals.

Clinicians who assess suicidal patients in the emergency department setting face the challenge of whether to admit the patient to inpatient or outpatient care, and data on predictors of compulsory admission are limited, wrote Laurent Michaud, MD, of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and colleagues.

To better identify predictors of hospitalization after self-harm, the researchers reviewed data from 1,832 patients aged 18 years and older admitted to four emergency departments in Switzerland between December 2016 and November 2019 .

Self-harm (SH) was defined in this study as “all nonfatal intentional acts of self-poisoning or self-injury, irrespective of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation,” the researchers noted. The study included 2,142 episodes of self-harm.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They compared episodes followed by any hospitalization and those with outpatient follow-up (1,083 episodes vs. 1,059 episodes) and episodes followed by compulsory hospitalization (357 episodes) with all other episodes followed by either outpatient care or voluntary hospitalization (1,785 episodes).

Overall, women were significantly more likely to be referred to outpatient follow-up compared with men (61.8% vs. 38.1%), and hospitalized patients were significantly older than outpatients (mean age of 41 years vs. 36 years, P < .001 for both).

“Not surprisingly, major psychopathological conditions such as depression, mania, dementia, and schizophrenia were predictive of hospitalization,” the researchers noted.

Other sociodemographic factors associated with hospitalization included living alone, no children, problematic socioeconomic status, and unemployment. Clinical factors associated with hospitalization included physical pain, more lethal suicide attempt method, and clear intent to die.

In a multivariate analysis, independent predictors of any hospitalization included male gender, older age, assessment in the Neuchatel location vs. Lausanne, depression vs. personality disorders, substance use, or anxiety disorder, difficult socioeconomic status, a clear vs. unclear intent to die, and a serious suicide attempt vs. less serious.

Differences in hospitalization based on hospital setting was a striking finding, the researchers wrote in their discussion. These differences may be largely explained by the organization of local mental health services and specific institutional cultures; the workload of staff and availability of beds also may have played a role in decisions to hospitalize, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on the realization level of a self-harm episode and significant events such as a breakup, the researchers explained. Other limitations included missing data, multiple analyses that could increase the risk of false positives, the reliance on clinical diagnosis rather than formal instruments, and the cross-sectional study design, they said.

However, the results have clinical implications, as the clinical factors identified could be used to target subgroups of suicidal populations and refine treatment strategies, they concluded.

The study was supported by institutional funding and the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Being male, being older, and having a clear intent to die were among the key independent predictors of psychiatric hospital admission after self-harm, based on data from more than 1,800 individuals.

Clinicians who assess suicidal patients in the emergency department setting face the challenge of whether to admit the patient to inpatient or outpatient care, and data on predictors of compulsory admission are limited, wrote Laurent Michaud, MD, of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and colleagues.

To better identify predictors of hospitalization after self-harm, the researchers reviewed data from 1,832 patients aged 18 years and older admitted to four emergency departments in Switzerland between December 2016 and November 2019 .

Self-harm (SH) was defined in this study as “all nonfatal intentional acts of self-poisoning or self-injury, irrespective of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation,” the researchers noted. The study included 2,142 episodes of self-harm.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They compared episodes followed by any hospitalization and those with outpatient follow-up (1,083 episodes vs. 1,059 episodes) and episodes followed by compulsory hospitalization (357 episodes) with all other episodes followed by either outpatient care or voluntary hospitalization (1,785 episodes).

Overall, women were significantly more likely to be referred to outpatient follow-up compared with men (61.8% vs. 38.1%), and hospitalized patients were significantly older than outpatients (mean age of 41 years vs. 36 years, P < .001 for both).

“Not surprisingly, major psychopathological conditions such as depression, mania, dementia, and schizophrenia were predictive of hospitalization,” the researchers noted.

Other sociodemographic factors associated with hospitalization included living alone, no children, problematic socioeconomic status, and unemployment. Clinical factors associated with hospitalization included physical pain, more lethal suicide attempt method, and clear intent to die.

In a multivariate analysis, independent predictors of any hospitalization included male gender, older age, assessment in the Neuchatel location vs. Lausanne, depression vs. personality disorders, substance use, or anxiety disorder, difficult socioeconomic status, a clear vs. unclear intent to die, and a serious suicide attempt vs. less serious.

Differences in hospitalization based on hospital setting was a striking finding, the researchers wrote in their discussion. These differences may be largely explained by the organization of local mental health services and specific institutional cultures; the workload of staff and availability of beds also may have played a role in decisions to hospitalize, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on the realization level of a self-harm episode and significant events such as a breakup, the researchers explained. Other limitations included missing data, multiple analyses that could increase the risk of false positives, the reliance on clinical diagnosis rather than formal instruments, and the cross-sectional study design, they said.

However, the results have clinical implications, as the clinical factors identified could be used to target subgroups of suicidal populations and refine treatment strategies, they concluded.

The study was supported by institutional funding and the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In 1993, managing patients with stroke had long remained an elusive and somewhat intimidating task for the neurological world. Previous efforts to treat the condition had produced more frustration than success, leaving clinicians and patients alike in despair for a solution. However, some successes in treating coronary thrombosis during that era rejuvenated researchers’ efforts to crack the code. An international team of researchers had studied a Streptococcus derivative (streptokinase) and others had begun to study a natural substance termed tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) as thrombolytic agents to lyse coronary clots and to treat pulmonary embolism. The adverse event of excessive bleeding found in Australian studies done on streptokinase intervention in patients with stroke prompted researchers to contemplate use of tPA in stroke management.

The combination of tPA and advanced imaging technology led researchers to take a unique approach that would forever revolutionize stroke management, beginning in the early 1990s.

A group of German, Japanese, and American investigators began to research thrombolysis in acute stroke patients during the mid-1980s.

“What was unique is that patients had a CT scan followed by a catheter angiogram,” said Louis Caplan, MD, a senior member of the division of cerebrovascular disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

“If they had a blocked vessel, they got the drug, delivered either intravenously or intra-arterially.”

The process involved keeping the catheter open after drug administration to determine whether the vessel had opened or remained occluded. The researchers learned which blocked vessels opened when the drug was given intravenously and which required direct introduction of the drug into the clots.

A group of investigators in the United States funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke then performed a randomized therapeutic trial of intravenous tPA given within 90 minutes and 180 minutes after stroke symptom onset. The study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Soon thereafter, in 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of tPA following the inclusion and exclusion rules used in the NINDS trial.

After the FDA approved tPA in 1995, stroke management was never the same.
 

tPA was just one factor in optimizing stroke management

Despite the major therapeutic breakthrough with tPA’s approval, it took the clinics, hospitals, and other acute care systems a while to catch up. “Neurologists and hospitals weren’t ready for acute stroke intervention and proper stroke management in the mid-90s,” Dr. Caplan recalled. “At the time, stroke wasn’t at the forefront of treatment, general neurologists weren’t trained, and there weren’t enough stroke neurologists.”

The preparation and training deficit was further exacerbated by low reimbursement for services. As a result, only about 5% of patients who were eligible for acute stroke management were treated with tPA.

According to Dr. Caplan, during the next 15-20 years, the accumulation of stroke data from MRI and CT vascular imaging clarified further which patients, with what extent of infarction, with which blocked vessels, would be good candidates for treatment.

More patients received interventional treatment using catheters directed into the area of clotting in attempt to remove the blockages. In addition, information regarding intervention at different periods (10-16 hours, up to 24 hours) and conditions (for example, patients with varying degrees of disability, infarct) were tested.

Eventually, hospitals became more attuned to emergency stroke treatment. More neurologists became trained, more stroke centers emerged, and clinicians enjoyed the benefit of technological advancements that allowed them to explore perfusion.
 

While decentralized care enhances outcomes in stroke management, more progress is needed

As of early 2023, stroke is one of the leading emergency diagnoses, and patients have access to primary and secondary stroke centers that are sprinkled throughout the United States. As impressive as the feat may seem, health care systems still have major strides to make to truly optimize therapy and outcomes in this patient population.

For example, location and access remain important issues. Secondary centers are typically located in large, metropolitan areas. While an urban location makes a primary center geographically more accessible to a larger patient population, traffic frequently hinders door-to-door access.

In the case of rural centers, distance can retard access, but they also face the challenges of how to route patients – especially patients who require more specialized care offered by secondary centers. Fortunately, primary centers have some ways to help better support their patients.

“One thing that happened is that primary centers made agreements with secondary centers via telemedicine to determine whether patients should be treated at the primary center or whether they should be routed to the higher-level center. These arrangements were termed ‘spoke and wheel,’ ” Dr. Caplan told this publication.

However, not all patients who are candidates for transport to a secondary center are able to be transported. In such cases, primary centers can use telemedicine to collaborate with secondary centers for support.

Logistics aside, perhaps today’s greatest challenge for clinicians is ensuring their patients and families receive education to increase their awareness of stroke centers as an important option for treatment and outcome optimization. Many patients and their loved ones do not realize that these centers exist or how to utilize them if and when the time comes.

Right now, some cities have stroke ambulances staffed with physicians to treat patients in the field. This decentralized model helps address access burdens such as door-to-needle delays and transportation while improving survival and recovery. Dr. Caplan said these services are available in Munich, and in a few select U.S. cities such as Cleveland and Houston, which helped pioneer the concept.
 

Better access in the future?

Looking ahead, Dr. Caplan seems optimistic about how stroke management will continue to evolve. Many cities will have stroke ambulances to provide on-site care, while stroke institutions will improve their cross-collaborative efforts to support their patient populations.

At the crux of cross-collaboration lies enhanced communication between peripheral and urban hospitals.

“Peripheral and urban hospitals and state organizations will engage in smoother integration to figure out when to take patient to the bigger hospitals,” Dr. Caplan said. “I also believe we will see greater emphasis on rehabilitation and recovery.”

As promising as the future looks, only time will tell.
 

In 1993, managing patients with stroke had long remained an elusive and somewhat intimidating task for the neurological world. Previous efforts to treat the condition had produced more frustration than success, leaving clinicians and patients alike in despair for a solution. However, some successes in treating coronary thrombosis during that era rejuvenated researchers’ efforts to crack the code. An international team of researchers had studied a Streptococcus derivative (streptokinase) and others had begun to study a natural substance termed tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) as thrombolytic agents to lyse coronary clots and to treat pulmonary embolism. The adverse event of excessive bleeding found in Australian studies done on streptokinase intervention in patients with stroke prompted researchers to contemplate use of tPA in stroke management.

The combination of tPA and advanced imaging technology led researchers to take a unique approach that would forever revolutionize stroke management, beginning in the early 1990s.

A group of German, Japanese, and American investigators began to research thrombolysis in acute stroke patients during the mid-1980s.

“What was unique is that patients had a CT scan followed by a catheter angiogram,” said Louis Caplan, MD, a senior member of the division of cerebrovascular disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

“If they had a blocked vessel, they got the drug, delivered either intravenously or intra-arterially.”

The process involved keeping the catheter open after drug administration to determine whether the vessel had opened or remained occluded. The researchers learned which blocked vessels opened when the drug was given intravenously and which required direct introduction of the drug into the clots.

A group of investigators in the United States funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke then performed a randomized therapeutic trial of intravenous tPA given within 90 minutes and 180 minutes after stroke symptom onset. The study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Soon thereafter, in 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of tPA following the inclusion and exclusion rules used in the NINDS trial.

After the FDA approved tPA in 1995, stroke management was never the same.
 

tPA was just one factor in optimizing stroke management

Despite the major therapeutic breakthrough with tPA’s approval, it took the clinics, hospitals, and other acute care systems a while to catch up. “Neurologists and hospitals weren’t ready for acute stroke intervention and proper stroke management in the mid-90s,” Dr. Caplan recalled. “At the time, stroke wasn’t at the forefront of treatment, general neurologists weren’t trained, and there weren’t enough stroke neurologists.”

The preparation and training deficit was further exacerbated by low reimbursement for services. As a result, only about 5% of patients who were eligible for acute stroke management were treated with tPA.

According to Dr. Caplan, during the next 15-20 years, the accumulation of stroke data from MRI and CT vascular imaging clarified further which patients, with what extent of infarction, with which blocked vessels, would be good candidates for treatment.

More patients received interventional treatment using catheters directed into the area of clotting in attempt to remove the blockages. In addition, information regarding intervention at different periods (10-16 hours, up to 24 hours) and conditions (for example, patients with varying degrees of disability, infarct) were tested.

Eventually, hospitals became more attuned to emergency stroke treatment. More neurologists became trained, more stroke centers emerged, and clinicians enjoyed the benefit of technological advancements that allowed them to explore perfusion.
 

While decentralized care enhances outcomes in stroke management, more progress is needed

As of early 2023, stroke is one of the leading emergency diagnoses, and patients have access to primary and secondary stroke centers that are sprinkled throughout the United States. As impressive as the feat may seem, health care systems still have major strides to make to truly optimize therapy and outcomes in this patient population.

For example, location and access remain important issues. Secondary centers are typically located in large, metropolitan areas. While an urban location makes a primary center geographically more accessible to a larger patient population, traffic frequently hinders door-to-door access.

In the case of rural centers, distance can retard access, but they also face the challenges of how to route patients – especially patients who require more specialized care offered by secondary centers. Fortunately, primary centers have some ways to help better support their patients.

“One thing that happened is that primary centers made agreements with secondary centers via telemedicine to determine whether patients should be treated at the primary center or whether they should be routed to the higher-level center. These arrangements were termed ‘spoke and wheel,’ ” Dr. Caplan told this publication.

However, not all patients who are candidates for transport to a secondary center are able to be transported. In such cases, primary centers can use telemedicine to collaborate with secondary centers for support.

Logistics aside, perhaps today’s greatest challenge for clinicians is ensuring their patients and families receive education to increase their awareness of stroke centers as an important option for treatment and outcome optimization. Many patients and their loved ones do not realize that these centers exist or how to utilize them if and when the time comes.

Right now, some cities have stroke ambulances staffed with physicians to treat patients in the field. This decentralized model helps address access burdens such as door-to-needle delays and transportation while improving survival and recovery. Dr. Caplan said these services are available in Munich, and in a few select U.S. cities such as Cleveland and Houston, which helped pioneer the concept.
 

Better access in the future?

Looking ahead, Dr. Caplan seems optimistic about how stroke management will continue to evolve. Many cities will have stroke ambulances to provide on-site care, while stroke institutions will improve their cross-collaborative efforts to support their patient populations.

At the crux of cross-collaboration lies enhanced communication between peripheral and urban hospitals.

“Peripheral and urban hospitals and state organizations will engage in smoother integration to figure out when to take patient to the bigger hospitals,” Dr. Caplan said. “I also believe we will see greater emphasis on rehabilitation and recovery.”

As promising as the future looks, only time will tell.
 

In 1993, managing patients with stroke had long remained an elusive and somewhat intimidating task for the neurological world. Previous efforts to treat the condition had produced more frustration than success, leaving clinicians and patients alike in despair for a solution. However, some successes in treating coronary thrombosis during that era rejuvenated researchers’ efforts to crack the code. An international team of researchers had studied a Streptococcus derivative (streptokinase) and others had begun to study a natural substance termed tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) as thrombolytic agents to lyse coronary clots and to treat pulmonary embolism. The adverse event of excessive bleeding found in Australian studies done on streptokinase intervention in patients with stroke prompted researchers to contemplate use of tPA in stroke management.

The combination of tPA and advanced imaging technology led researchers to take a unique approach that would forever revolutionize stroke management, beginning in the early 1990s.

A group of German, Japanese, and American investigators began to research thrombolysis in acute stroke patients during the mid-1980s.

“What was unique is that patients had a CT scan followed by a catheter angiogram,” said Louis Caplan, MD, a senior member of the division of cerebrovascular disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

“If they had a blocked vessel, they got the drug, delivered either intravenously or intra-arterially.”

The process involved keeping the catheter open after drug administration to determine whether the vessel had opened or remained occluded. The researchers learned which blocked vessels opened when the drug was given intravenously and which required direct introduction of the drug into the clots.

A group of investigators in the United States funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke then performed a randomized therapeutic trial of intravenous tPA given within 90 minutes and 180 minutes after stroke symptom onset. The study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Soon thereafter, in 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of tPA following the inclusion and exclusion rules used in the NINDS trial.

After the FDA approved tPA in 1995, stroke management was never the same.
 

tPA was just one factor in optimizing stroke management

Despite the major therapeutic breakthrough with tPA’s approval, it took the clinics, hospitals, and other acute care systems a while to catch up. “Neurologists and hospitals weren’t ready for acute stroke intervention and proper stroke management in the mid-90s,” Dr. Caplan recalled. “At the time, stroke wasn’t at the forefront of treatment, general neurologists weren’t trained, and there weren’t enough stroke neurologists.”

The preparation and training deficit was further exacerbated by low reimbursement for services. As a result, only about 5% of patients who were eligible for acute stroke management were treated with tPA.

According to Dr. Caplan, during the next 15-20 years, the accumulation of stroke data from MRI and CT vascular imaging clarified further which patients, with what extent of infarction, with which blocked vessels, would be good candidates for treatment.

More patients received interventional treatment using catheters directed into the area of clotting in attempt to remove the blockages. In addition, information regarding intervention at different periods (10-16 hours, up to 24 hours) and conditions (for example, patients with varying degrees of disability, infarct) were tested.

Eventually, hospitals became more attuned to emergency stroke treatment. More neurologists became trained, more stroke centers emerged, and clinicians enjoyed the benefit of technological advancements that allowed them to explore perfusion.
 

While decentralized care enhances outcomes in stroke management, more progress is needed

As of early 2023, stroke is one of the leading emergency diagnoses, and patients have access to primary and secondary stroke centers that are sprinkled throughout the United States. As impressive as the feat may seem, health care systems still have major strides to make to truly optimize therapy and outcomes in this patient population.

For example, location and access remain important issues. Secondary centers are typically located in large, metropolitan areas. While an urban location makes a primary center geographically more accessible to a larger patient population, traffic frequently hinders door-to-door access.

In the case of rural centers, distance can retard access, but they also face the challenges of how to route patients – especially patients who require more specialized care offered by secondary centers. Fortunately, primary centers have some ways to help better support their patients.

“One thing that happened is that primary centers made agreements with secondary centers via telemedicine to determine whether patients should be treated at the primary center or whether they should be routed to the higher-level center. These arrangements were termed ‘spoke and wheel,’ ” Dr. Caplan told this publication.

However, not all patients who are candidates for transport to a secondary center are able to be transported. In such cases, primary centers can use telemedicine to collaborate with secondary centers for support.

Logistics aside, perhaps today’s greatest challenge for clinicians is ensuring their patients and families receive education to increase their awareness of stroke centers as an important option for treatment and outcome optimization. Many patients and their loved ones do not realize that these centers exist or how to utilize them if and when the time comes.

Right now, some cities have stroke ambulances staffed with physicians to treat patients in the field. This decentralized model helps address access burdens such as door-to-needle delays and transportation while improving survival and recovery. Dr. Caplan said these services are available in Munich, and in a few select U.S. cities such as Cleveland and Houston, which helped pioneer the concept.
 

Better access in the future?

Looking ahead, Dr. Caplan seems optimistic about how stroke management will continue to evolve. Many cities will have stroke ambulances to provide on-site care, while stroke institutions will improve their cross-collaborative efforts to support their patient populations.

At the crux of cross-collaboration lies enhanced communication between peripheral and urban hospitals.

“Peripheral and urban hospitals and state organizations will engage in smoother integration to figure out when to take patient to the bigger hospitals,” Dr. Caplan said. “I also believe we will see greater emphasis on rehabilitation and recovery.”

As promising as the future looks, only time will tell.
 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has updated the Abiomed Impella RP System’s approved indications in a way that “better reflects the characteristics of the patients who may benefit the most from treatment with the device,” the agency has announced.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The revised language reflects the final results of a postapproval study in which survival rates for patients who met the premarket-study entry criteria were comparable to rates seen in the premarket studies, the FDA observed.

The postapproval study “further confirms that the device is safe and effective when used for the currently approved indication.” The indication’s added words, however, tighten the description of eligible patients in a way that more precisely reflects the premarket-study population.

The update states that the Impella RP System is “indicated for providing temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area ≥ 1.5 m², who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation for less than 48 hours following left ventricular assist device implantation, myocardial infarction, heart transplant, or open heart surgery, without the presence of profound shock, end organ failure, or acute neurologic injury.”

The FDA “believes that when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP System continue to outweigh the risks.”

The reworded indication is the latest among several updates to the agency’s February 2019 letter to clinicians noting a signal of increased mortality associated with the Impella RP device in an interim analysis of the same postapproval study. Ultimately, no such signal has emerged among the subset of postapproval patients who would have been eligible for the premarket study.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has updated the Abiomed Impella RP System’s approved indications in a way that “better reflects the characteristics of the patients who may benefit the most from treatment with the device,” the agency has announced.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The revised language reflects the final results of a postapproval study in which survival rates for patients who met the premarket-study entry criteria were comparable to rates seen in the premarket studies, the FDA observed.

The postapproval study “further confirms that the device is safe and effective when used for the currently approved indication.” The indication’s added words, however, tighten the description of eligible patients in a way that more precisely reflects the premarket-study population.

The update states that the Impella RP System is “indicated for providing temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area ≥ 1.5 m², who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation for less than 48 hours following left ventricular assist device implantation, myocardial infarction, heart transplant, or open heart surgery, without the presence of profound shock, end organ failure, or acute neurologic injury.”

The FDA “believes that when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP System continue to outweigh the risks.”

The reworded indication is the latest among several updates to the agency’s February 2019 letter to clinicians noting a signal of increased mortality associated with the Impella RP device in an interim analysis of the same postapproval study. Ultimately, no such signal has emerged among the subset of postapproval patients who would have been eligible for the premarket study.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has updated the Abiomed Impella RP System’s approved indications in a way that “better reflects the characteristics of the patients who may benefit the most from treatment with the device,” the agency has announced.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The revised language reflects the final results of a postapproval study in which survival rates for patients who met the premarket-study entry criteria were comparable to rates seen in the premarket studies, the FDA observed.

The postapproval study “further confirms that the device is safe and effective when used for the currently approved indication.” The indication’s added words, however, tighten the description of eligible patients in a way that more precisely reflects the premarket-study population.

The update states that the Impella RP System is “indicated for providing temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area ≥ 1.5 m², who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation for less than 48 hours following left ventricular assist device implantation, myocardial infarction, heart transplant, or open heart surgery, without the presence of profound shock, end organ failure, or acute neurologic injury.”

The FDA “believes that when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP System continue to outweigh the risks.”

The reworded indication is the latest among several updates to the agency’s February 2019 letter to clinicians noting a signal of increased mortality associated with the Impella RP device in an interim analysis of the same postapproval study. Ultimately, no such signal has emerged among the subset of postapproval patients who would have been eligible for the premarket study.

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

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report is revised annually and is used widely throughout the world as a tool for implementing effective management.

Among the updates in the 2023 GOLD Report, the section on diagnostic criteria added a proposed new category “PRISm,” denoting “preserved ratio impaired spirometry,” encompassing individuals who present with structural lung lesions (for example, emphysema) and/or other physiological abnormalities such as low-normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), gas trapping, hyperinflation, reduced lung diffusing capacity and/or rapid FEV₁ decline, but without airflow obstruction (FEV₁/FEV ≥ 0.7 post bronchodilation). Some of these “pre-COPD” (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) individuals, who have a normal ratio but abnormal spirometry are at risk over time of developing airflow obstruction. The best treatment for them, beyond smoking cessation, needs to be determined through research, the report states.
 

Clinical updates

The GOLD 2023 Report also offers proposed clinical guidance, in the absence of high-quality clinical trial evidence, on initial pharmacologic management of COPD. The proposal is based on individual assessment of symptoms and exacerbation risk following use of the ABE Assessment Tool, a revised version of the ABCD Assessment Tool that recognizes the clinical relevance of exacerbations independent of symptom level.

These updates to information and figures pertaining to initial pharmacological treatment and follow-up pharmacological treatment revise the positioning of LABA (long-acting beta₂ agonists) plus LAMA (long-acting muscarinic agonists) and LABA/ICS (inhaled corticosteroids). Among GOLD group A patients with 0 or 1 moderate exacerbations that do not lead to hospital admission, a bronchodilator is recommended.

The recommendation for group B patients is LABA/LAMA with the caveat that single inhaler therapy may be more convenient and effective than multiple inhalers. For group E patients with two or more moderate exacerbations or one or more leading to hospitalization, LABA/LAMA is recommended (with the same inhaler therapy caveat). With blood eosinophil levels at 300 or higher, LABA/LAMA/ICS may be considered.

Commenting on the combination recommendations in a press release, Antonio Anzueto, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary critical care, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, stated: “From a physician’s perspective, we are always grateful to receive well-vetted and informed recommendations on how we can best utilize available treatment options to provide the most benefit to our patients. The new 2023 GOLD recommendations represent a meaningful change for the treatment of COPD by prioritizing the utilization of a fixed LAMA/LABA combination.”
 

More interventions

In a section on therapeutic interventions to reduce COPD mortality, the report lists studies showing mortality benefits for fixed-dose inhaled triple combinations (LABA + LAMA + ICS) versus dual inhaled long-acting bronchodilations, and for smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation.

Also new is a strong emphasis on inhaler choice, education, and technique training with assessment of inhaler technique and adherence urged as a prerequisite to judging whether current therapy as insufficient. The report summarizes principles guiding inhaler type selection.

The report also added a section on chronic bronchitis, defining it as a common but variable condition in COPD patients with cough and expectorated sputum on a regular basis over a defined period in the absence of other conditions plausibly causing symptoms.

The fact that chronic bronchitis is sometimes found in never-smokers suggests the involvement of other factors such as exposure to inhaled dusts, biomass fuels, chemical fumes, or domestic heating and cooking fuels, according to the report. Gastroesophageal reflux may also be associated with chronic bronchitis.

The report discusses various taxonomic terms for different types of COPD, such as COPD-G for genetically determined COPD, COPD-D for those with abnormal lung development, and COPD-C for COPD associated with cigarette smoking, etc.
 

Change in exacerbations

The report also revises the definition of a COPD exacerbation as “an event characterized by increased dyspnea and/or cough and sputum that worsens in less than 14 days which may be accompanied by tachypnea and/or tachycardia and is often associated with increased local and system inflammation caused by infection, pollution, or other insult to the airways.” To overcome limitations conferred by the current grading of COPD exacerbations, the 2023 report proposes a four-step point-of-contact diagnosis and assessment tool.

Telemedicine

Given the constraints brought on by COVID-19 on top of the generally sparse availability of programs and facilities for delivering well-proven pulmonary rehabilitation methods, tele-rehabilitation has been proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches. While the evidence base is still evolving and best practices have not yet been established, the GOLD Report calls for better understanding of barriers to tele-rehabilitation success.

Comorbidities update

The GOLD Report chapter on COPD and comorbidities was also updated, and lists cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, osteoporosis, depression/anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux disease as common comorbid conditions which may affect prognosis and, in the case of cancer, mortality. The report urges simplicity of treatment to minimize polypharmacy. While annual low-dose CT is recommended for COPD caused by smoking, it is not recommended for COPD caused by smoking; data are insufficient to establish benefit over harm.

While the GOLD Report “COVID-19 and COPD” chapter summarizes current evidence stating that individuals with COPD do not seem to be at substantially greater risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, it underscores that they are at higher risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and may be at higher risk for developing severe disease and death.

Many other topics are included in the updated report, among them screening, imaging, vaccinations, adherence to therapy, and surgical and bronchoscopic interventions. In its closing section, the GOLD Report 2023 reiterates its mission, stating: “The GOLD initiative will continue to work with National Leaders and other interested health care professionals to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, to raise awareness of the burden of COPD and to develop programs for early detection, prevention and approaches to management.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report is revised annually and is used widely throughout the world as a tool for implementing effective management.

Among the updates in the 2023 GOLD Report, the section on diagnostic criteria added a proposed new category “PRISm,” denoting “preserved ratio impaired spirometry,” encompassing individuals who present with structural lung lesions (for example, emphysema) and/or other physiological abnormalities such as low-normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), gas trapping, hyperinflation, reduced lung diffusing capacity and/or rapid FEV₁ decline, but without airflow obstruction (FEV₁/FEV ≥ 0.7 post bronchodilation). Some of these “pre-COPD” (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) individuals, who have a normal ratio but abnormal spirometry are at risk over time of developing airflow obstruction. The best treatment for them, beyond smoking cessation, needs to be determined through research, the report states.
 

Clinical updates

The GOLD 2023 Report also offers proposed clinical guidance, in the absence of high-quality clinical trial evidence, on initial pharmacologic management of COPD. The proposal is based on individual assessment of symptoms and exacerbation risk following use of the ABE Assessment Tool, a revised version of the ABCD Assessment Tool that recognizes the clinical relevance of exacerbations independent of symptom level.

These updates to information and figures pertaining to initial pharmacological treatment and follow-up pharmacological treatment revise the positioning of LABA (long-acting beta₂ agonists) plus LAMA (long-acting muscarinic agonists) and LABA/ICS (inhaled corticosteroids). Among GOLD group A patients with 0 or 1 moderate exacerbations that do not lead to hospital admission, a bronchodilator is recommended.

The recommendation for group B patients is LABA/LAMA with the caveat that single inhaler therapy may be more convenient and effective than multiple inhalers. For group E patients with two or more moderate exacerbations or one or more leading to hospitalization, LABA/LAMA is recommended (with the same inhaler therapy caveat). With blood eosinophil levels at 300 or higher, LABA/LAMA/ICS may be considered.

Commenting on the combination recommendations in a press release, Antonio Anzueto, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary critical care, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, stated: “From a physician’s perspective, we are always grateful to receive well-vetted and informed recommendations on how we can best utilize available treatment options to provide the most benefit to our patients. The new 2023 GOLD recommendations represent a meaningful change for the treatment of COPD by prioritizing the utilization of a fixed LAMA/LABA combination.”
 

More interventions

In a section on therapeutic interventions to reduce COPD mortality, the report lists studies showing mortality benefits for fixed-dose inhaled triple combinations (LABA + LAMA + ICS) versus dual inhaled long-acting bronchodilations, and for smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation.

Also new is a strong emphasis on inhaler choice, education, and technique training with assessment of inhaler technique and adherence urged as a prerequisite to judging whether current therapy as insufficient. The report summarizes principles guiding inhaler type selection.

The report also added a section on chronic bronchitis, defining it as a common but variable condition in COPD patients with cough and expectorated sputum on a regular basis over a defined period in the absence of other conditions plausibly causing symptoms.

The fact that chronic bronchitis is sometimes found in never-smokers suggests the involvement of other factors such as exposure to inhaled dusts, biomass fuels, chemical fumes, or domestic heating and cooking fuels, according to the report. Gastroesophageal reflux may also be associated with chronic bronchitis.

The report discusses various taxonomic terms for different types of COPD, such as COPD-G for genetically determined COPD, COPD-D for those with abnormal lung development, and COPD-C for COPD associated with cigarette smoking, etc.
 

Change in exacerbations

The report also revises the definition of a COPD exacerbation as “an event characterized by increased dyspnea and/or cough and sputum that worsens in less than 14 days which may be accompanied by tachypnea and/or tachycardia and is often associated with increased local and system inflammation caused by infection, pollution, or other insult to the airways.” To overcome limitations conferred by the current grading of COPD exacerbations, the 2023 report proposes a four-step point-of-contact diagnosis and assessment tool.

Telemedicine

Given the constraints brought on by COVID-19 on top of the generally sparse availability of programs and facilities for delivering well-proven pulmonary rehabilitation methods, tele-rehabilitation has been proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches. While the evidence base is still evolving and best practices have not yet been established, the GOLD Report calls for better understanding of barriers to tele-rehabilitation success.

Comorbidities update

The GOLD Report chapter on COPD and comorbidities was also updated, and lists cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, osteoporosis, depression/anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux disease as common comorbid conditions which may affect prognosis and, in the case of cancer, mortality. The report urges simplicity of treatment to minimize polypharmacy. While annual low-dose CT is recommended for COPD caused by smoking, it is not recommended for COPD caused by smoking; data are insufficient to establish benefit over harm.

While the GOLD Report “COVID-19 and COPD” chapter summarizes current evidence stating that individuals with COPD do not seem to be at substantially greater risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, it underscores that they are at higher risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and may be at higher risk for developing severe disease and death.

Many other topics are included in the updated report, among them screening, imaging, vaccinations, adherence to therapy, and surgical and bronchoscopic interventions. In its closing section, the GOLD Report 2023 reiterates its mission, stating: “The GOLD initiative will continue to work with National Leaders and other interested health care professionals to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, to raise awareness of the burden of COPD and to develop programs for early detection, prevention and approaches to management.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report is revised annually and is used widely throughout the world as a tool for implementing effective management.

Among the updates in the 2023 GOLD Report, the section on diagnostic criteria added a proposed new category “PRISm,” denoting “preserved ratio impaired spirometry,” encompassing individuals who present with structural lung lesions (for example, emphysema) and/or other physiological abnormalities such as low-normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), gas trapping, hyperinflation, reduced lung diffusing capacity and/or rapid FEV₁ decline, but without airflow obstruction (FEV₁/FEV ≥ 0.7 post bronchodilation). Some of these “pre-COPD” (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) individuals, who have a normal ratio but abnormal spirometry are at risk over time of developing airflow obstruction. The best treatment for them, beyond smoking cessation, needs to be determined through research, the report states.
 

Clinical updates

The GOLD 2023 Report also offers proposed clinical guidance, in the absence of high-quality clinical trial evidence, on initial pharmacologic management of COPD. The proposal is based on individual assessment of symptoms and exacerbation risk following use of the ABE Assessment Tool, a revised version of the ABCD Assessment Tool that recognizes the clinical relevance of exacerbations independent of symptom level.

These updates to information and figures pertaining to initial pharmacological treatment and follow-up pharmacological treatment revise the positioning of LABA (long-acting beta₂ agonists) plus LAMA (long-acting muscarinic agonists) and LABA/ICS (inhaled corticosteroids). Among GOLD group A patients with 0 or 1 moderate exacerbations that do not lead to hospital admission, a bronchodilator is recommended.

The recommendation for group B patients is LABA/LAMA with the caveat that single inhaler therapy may be more convenient and effective than multiple inhalers. For group E patients with two or more moderate exacerbations or one or more leading to hospitalization, LABA/LAMA is recommended (with the same inhaler therapy caveat). With blood eosinophil levels at 300 or higher, LABA/LAMA/ICS may be considered.

Commenting on the combination recommendations in a press release, Antonio Anzueto, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary critical care, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, stated: “From a physician’s perspective, we are always grateful to receive well-vetted and informed recommendations on how we can best utilize available treatment options to provide the most benefit to our patients. The new 2023 GOLD recommendations represent a meaningful change for the treatment of COPD by prioritizing the utilization of a fixed LAMA/LABA combination.”
 

More interventions

In a section on therapeutic interventions to reduce COPD mortality, the report lists studies showing mortality benefits for fixed-dose inhaled triple combinations (LABA + LAMA + ICS) versus dual inhaled long-acting bronchodilations, and for smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation.

Also new is a strong emphasis on inhaler choice, education, and technique training with assessment of inhaler technique and adherence urged as a prerequisite to judging whether current therapy as insufficient. The report summarizes principles guiding inhaler type selection.

The report also added a section on chronic bronchitis, defining it as a common but variable condition in COPD patients with cough and expectorated sputum on a regular basis over a defined period in the absence of other conditions plausibly causing symptoms.

The fact that chronic bronchitis is sometimes found in never-smokers suggests the involvement of other factors such as exposure to inhaled dusts, biomass fuels, chemical fumes, or domestic heating and cooking fuels, according to the report. Gastroesophageal reflux may also be associated with chronic bronchitis.

The report discusses various taxonomic terms for different types of COPD, such as COPD-G for genetically determined COPD, COPD-D for those with abnormal lung development, and COPD-C for COPD associated with cigarette smoking, etc.
 

Change in exacerbations

The report also revises the definition of a COPD exacerbation as “an event characterized by increased dyspnea and/or cough and sputum that worsens in less than 14 days which may be accompanied by tachypnea and/or tachycardia and is often associated with increased local and system inflammation caused by infection, pollution, or other insult to the airways.” To overcome limitations conferred by the current grading of COPD exacerbations, the 2023 report proposes a four-step point-of-contact diagnosis and assessment tool.

Telemedicine

Given the constraints brought on by COVID-19 on top of the generally sparse availability of programs and facilities for delivering well-proven pulmonary rehabilitation methods, tele-rehabilitation has been proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches. While the evidence base is still evolving and best practices have not yet been established, the GOLD Report calls for better understanding of barriers to tele-rehabilitation success.

Comorbidities update

The GOLD Report chapter on COPD and comorbidities was also updated, and lists cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, osteoporosis, depression/anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux disease as common comorbid conditions which may affect prognosis and, in the case of cancer, mortality. The report urges simplicity of treatment to minimize polypharmacy. While annual low-dose CT is recommended for COPD caused by smoking, it is not recommended for COPD caused by smoking; data are insufficient to establish benefit over harm.

While the GOLD Report “COVID-19 and COPD” chapter summarizes current evidence stating that individuals with COPD do not seem to be at substantially greater risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, it underscores that they are at higher risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and may be at higher risk for developing severe disease and death.

Many other topics are included in the updated report, among them screening, imaging, vaccinations, adherence to therapy, and surgical and bronchoscopic interventions. In its closing section, the GOLD Report 2023 reiterates its mission, stating: “The GOLD initiative will continue to work with National Leaders and other interested health care professionals to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, to raise awareness of the burden of COPD and to develop programs for early detection, prevention and approaches to management.