The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

People with migraine tend to have lower levels of physical activity than those without migraine despite the beneficial effects of physical activity on reducing frequency of migraine, according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

Though reliable research is sparse overall on how much physical activity people with migraine get, enough exists to reveal the need for clinicians to help patients identify ways to increase their levels of physical activity and make it a habit, said Dale S. Bond, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Miriam Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

He emphasized the need not only to replace sedentary time with physical activity but also to reduce sedentary time overall.

“It’s important to note that because active and sedentary represent different behavioral domains, people can still be active – that is, achieving recommended levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA] – but still be highly sedentary because they sit for long hours throughout the day,” Dr. Bond said. “This is important because MVPA will not necessarily eliminate the health risks of long hours of sitting.”

Dr. Bond reviewed the existing literature on physical activity and sedentary behavior among patients with migraine. His presentation, “Move More, Sit Less,” aimed at finding ways to incorporate more physical activity into the daily lives of those with migraine. Dr. Bond began by briefly reviewing the well-established benefits of physical activity, including healthy sleep; cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, mental, and cognitive health; and metabolic functioning.

“Physical activity and exercise in particular enhances the functioning of bodily systems, including those that have direct relevance to migraine in its comorbidities,” Dr. Bond said. “The positive systemic effects of exercise on bodily systems carries potential to reduce migraine severity and related disability and morbidity.”

He also explained the ways in which excessive sedentary time can exacerbate migraine triggers. “Long periods of interrupted sitting elevated levels of glucose and fat in the bloodstream, which in turn triggers the immune system to attack the body via inflammation,” Dr. Bond said. “Low grade chronic inflammation has long been hypothesized to play a role in migraine pathogenesis.”
 

Recommended levels of exercise

The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. An additional recommendation is at least 2 days per week of muscle strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups.

While neither of those organizations has specific guidelines on how much reduction of sedentary time is recommended, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology recommends limiting sedentary time to 8 or fewer hours per day.
 

Exercise and migraine

“Unfortunately, at present, we have very few studies from which to draw conclusions about the extent to which individuals with migraine adhere to physical activity and sedentary guidelines,” Dr. Bond said. Existing studies vary widely in sample types, study design, physical activity measure and MVPA outcome, including the type or definition of MVPA. “This wide variability in measures and outcomes makes it challenging to draw any conclusions about adherence to guidelines among individuals with migraine,” he said.

Existing evidence suggests anywhere from 32% to 66% of migraine patients are at least moderately active, though it’s not clear what constitutes “moderately active” behavior. It appears that activity levels of patients with migraine are low overall, but it’s less clear the extent to which these levels are lower than in controls given the paucity of evidence.

In one of the few studies using objective measures to assess physical activity in migraine patients, the daily level of MVPA was significantly lower in 25 women with migraine than in 25 age- and body mass index–matched women without migraine (P <. 003). Both groups had obesity. The same study found that virtually no women with migraine adhered to the guidelines recommending less than 8 hours a day of sedentary time, compared with 30% of women without migraine.

“Also, low physical activity and high sedentary levels appear to be consistent across headache and nonheadache days,” Dr. Bond said. “This finding in particular raises an interesting question: If migraine severity is not related to physical activity and sedentary time, what is it about migraine that contributes to an inactive and sedentary lifestyle?”

Dr. Bond noted that future research needs to include reports of frequency, duration, and intensity of activities performed as well as the percentage of participants who meet guidelines for physical activity and sedentary time. Ideally, these studies should include not only self-report but also objective measures of activity as well as assess sleep and identify barriers and facilitators to physical activity in patients.
 

Exercise avoidance

Dr. Bond described findings from survey of 100 women he conducted to better understand potential barriers and reported that 78% of patients report intentionally avoiding physical activity. These patients typically avoided it an average of 4 days per week, regardless of intensity, and additional survey findings found “that participants who reported any avoidance had stronger beliefs that physical activity would both trigger and worsen a migraine attack, compared with participants who reported no avoidance,” he said.

That finding matches the clinical experience of Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, who viewed the presentation but was not involved with it.

“They often feel that it is a trigger for worsening an attack or, for some people, can actually trigger an attack, and that they feel worse in the midst of an attack when they’re exercising,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview regarding her patients who exercise less frequently. “Since so many of the patients I see have a daily and constant headache, it’s about how they can get themselves to start to exercise when something makes them feel worse, even if it makes them feel better in the long run.”

Yet, experimental research suggests that physical activity is not necessarily a reliable trigger of migraine attacks and only worsens migraine in a minority of attacks, Dr. Bond said, revealing an interesting paradox: “While engaging in regular physical activity is an important migraine management strategy, most individuals in the study reported doing the exact opposite – that is, avoiding physical activity as a management strategy – and this strategy was associated with higher frequency and duration of attacks. Research from our group and others also suggested individuals with migraine could be overestimating the role that physical activity hasn’t triggering or worsening of attacks.”
 

Encouraging patients to exercise

Since the benefits of physical activity and limiting sedentary time outweigh the potential harms, “some physical activity is better than none,” Dr. Bond said. To help patients begin increasing their physical activity, he recommended advising them to start with small amounts and then gradually increase frequency, intensity, and duration over time.

Dr. Robblee follows a similar approach, taking into account each patient’s particular circumstances and any medications they’re taking, including the side effects of those medications.

“It’s about starting where they are,” Dr. Robblee said. “Some patients, despite having severe migraine, have built themselves up so they’re doing exercise three or four times per week, or every day, and I have other people who never exercise,” she said. “For those patients who are very sedentary, if I can get them to start with 5 minutes per week so they have that sense of accomplishment, then that’s where I start. Then slowly build it up over time. Like most things in the migraine world, I individualize it for the person.”

Dr. Bond offered the following specific tips to clinicians in educating and encouraging patients to increase physical activity:

• Educate patients regarding the short-and long-term benefits of moving more and sitting less, both for their migraines and for overall health.
• Correct misconceptions about the negative effects of physical activity as it relates to migraines.
• Personalize the rationale for physical activity to that patient’s specific values and personal goals.
• Encourage patients to use an activity tracker, both for tracking physical activity and sedentary time, and to monitor migraine attacks, stress, energy levels, and fatigue on days they do and do not exercise.
• Help patients set goals for eventually meeting MVPA recommendations and interrupting prolonged periods of sitting with brief movement breaks.
• Help patients identify rewards for meeting goals that are tied to the activity, such as new exercise clothing.
• Encourage patients to identify a consistent time for physical activity each day to establish a habit, “ideally in the morning before barriers and life get in the way,” he said.

Eventually, physical activity itself should become intrinsically rewarding, Dr. Bond said.

“To limit sitting and encourage more movement throughout the day, we want to make the choice to engage in physical activity easier by adding environmental cues that encourage physical activity,” he said. “Conversely, we want to make the choice to engage in sedentary behavior more difficult by increasing the amount of effort that is required to engage in these behaviors.”

Dr. Robblee found Dr. Bond’s emphasis on sitting less – distinct from moving more – a helpful frame to consider with her patients. “I really like the approach of looking at it from that approach: in addition to how do we get you up and moving, how much time are you sitting, and how often can you break that up into smaller increments so that you’re up more often?” Dr. Robblee said. “That sometimes sounds less scary than ‘let’s get you exercising.’ So ‘let’s get you sitting a little bit less.’ I think that is something I might start to adopt.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.
 

People with migraine tend to have lower levels of physical activity than those without migraine despite the beneficial effects of physical activity on reducing frequency of migraine, according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

Though reliable research is sparse overall on how much physical activity people with migraine get, enough exists to reveal the need for clinicians to help patients identify ways to increase their levels of physical activity and make it a habit, said Dale S. Bond, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Miriam Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

He emphasized the need not only to replace sedentary time with physical activity but also to reduce sedentary time overall.

“It’s important to note that because active and sedentary represent different behavioral domains, people can still be active – that is, achieving recommended levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA] – but still be highly sedentary because they sit for long hours throughout the day,” Dr. Bond said. “This is important because MVPA will not necessarily eliminate the health risks of long hours of sitting.”

Dr. Bond reviewed the existing literature on physical activity and sedentary behavior among patients with migraine. His presentation, “Move More, Sit Less,” aimed at finding ways to incorporate more physical activity into the daily lives of those with migraine. Dr. Bond began by briefly reviewing the well-established benefits of physical activity, including healthy sleep; cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, mental, and cognitive health; and metabolic functioning.

“Physical activity and exercise in particular enhances the functioning of bodily systems, including those that have direct relevance to migraine in its comorbidities,” Dr. Bond said. “The positive systemic effects of exercise on bodily systems carries potential to reduce migraine severity and related disability and morbidity.”

He also explained the ways in which excessive sedentary time can exacerbate migraine triggers. “Long periods of interrupted sitting elevated levels of glucose and fat in the bloodstream, which in turn triggers the immune system to attack the body via inflammation,” Dr. Bond said. “Low grade chronic inflammation has long been hypothesized to play a role in migraine pathogenesis.”
 

Recommended levels of exercise

The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. An additional recommendation is at least 2 days per week of muscle strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups.

While neither of those organizations has specific guidelines on how much reduction of sedentary time is recommended, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology recommends limiting sedentary time to 8 or fewer hours per day.
 

Exercise and migraine

“Unfortunately, at present, we have very few studies from which to draw conclusions about the extent to which individuals with migraine adhere to physical activity and sedentary guidelines,” Dr. Bond said. Existing studies vary widely in sample types, study design, physical activity measure and MVPA outcome, including the type or definition of MVPA. “This wide variability in measures and outcomes makes it challenging to draw any conclusions about adherence to guidelines among individuals with migraine,” he said.

Existing evidence suggests anywhere from 32% to 66% of migraine patients are at least moderately active, though it’s not clear what constitutes “moderately active” behavior. It appears that activity levels of patients with migraine are low overall, but it’s less clear the extent to which these levels are lower than in controls given the paucity of evidence.

In one of the few studies using objective measures to assess physical activity in migraine patients, the daily level of MVPA was significantly lower in 25 women with migraine than in 25 age- and body mass index–matched women without migraine (P <. 003). Both groups had obesity. The same study found that virtually no women with migraine adhered to the guidelines recommending less than 8 hours a day of sedentary time, compared with 30% of women without migraine.

“Also, low physical activity and high sedentary levels appear to be consistent across headache and nonheadache days,” Dr. Bond said. “This finding in particular raises an interesting question: If migraine severity is not related to physical activity and sedentary time, what is it about migraine that contributes to an inactive and sedentary lifestyle?”

Dr. Bond noted that future research needs to include reports of frequency, duration, and intensity of activities performed as well as the percentage of participants who meet guidelines for physical activity and sedentary time. Ideally, these studies should include not only self-report but also objective measures of activity as well as assess sleep and identify barriers and facilitators to physical activity in patients.
 

Exercise avoidance

Dr. Bond described findings from survey of 100 women he conducted to better understand potential barriers and reported that 78% of patients report intentionally avoiding physical activity. These patients typically avoided it an average of 4 days per week, regardless of intensity, and additional survey findings found “that participants who reported any avoidance had stronger beliefs that physical activity would both trigger and worsen a migraine attack, compared with participants who reported no avoidance,” he said.

That finding matches the clinical experience of Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, who viewed the presentation but was not involved with it.

“They often feel that it is a trigger for worsening an attack or, for some people, can actually trigger an attack, and that they feel worse in the midst of an attack when they’re exercising,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview regarding her patients who exercise less frequently. “Since so many of the patients I see have a daily and constant headache, it’s about how they can get themselves to start to exercise when something makes them feel worse, even if it makes them feel better in the long run.”

Yet, experimental research suggests that physical activity is not necessarily a reliable trigger of migraine attacks and only worsens migraine in a minority of attacks, Dr. Bond said, revealing an interesting paradox: “While engaging in regular physical activity is an important migraine management strategy, most individuals in the study reported doing the exact opposite – that is, avoiding physical activity as a management strategy – and this strategy was associated with higher frequency and duration of attacks. Research from our group and others also suggested individuals with migraine could be overestimating the role that physical activity hasn’t triggering or worsening of attacks.”
 

Encouraging patients to exercise

Since the benefits of physical activity and limiting sedentary time outweigh the potential harms, “some physical activity is better than none,” Dr. Bond said. To help patients begin increasing their physical activity, he recommended advising them to start with small amounts and then gradually increase frequency, intensity, and duration over time.

Dr. Robblee follows a similar approach, taking into account each patient’s particular circumstances and any medications they’re taking, including the side effects of those medications.

“It’s about starting where they are,” Dr. Robblee said. “Some patients, despite having severe migraine, have built themselves up so they’re doing exercise three or four times per week, or every day, and I have other people who never exercise,” she said. “For those patients who are very sedentary, if I can get them to start with 5 minutes per week so they have that sense of accomplishment, then that’s where I start. Then slowly build it up over time. Like most things in the migraine world, I individualize it for the person.”

Dr. Bond offered the following specific tips to clinicians in educating and encouraging patients to increase physical activity:

• Educate patients regarding the short-and long-term benefits of moving more and sitting less, both for their migraines and for overall health.
• Correct misconceptions about the negative effects of physical activity as it relates to migraines.
• Personalize the rationale for physical activity to that patient’s specific values and personal goals.
• Encourage patients to use an activity tracker, both for tracking physical activity and sedentary time, and to monitor migraine attacks, stress, energy levels, and fatigue on days they do and do not exercise.
• Help patients set goals for eventually meeting MVPA recommendations and interrupting prolonged periods of sitting with brief movement breaks.
• Help patients identify rewards for meeting goals that are tied to the activity, such as new exercise clothing.
• Encourage patients to identify a consistent time for physical activity each day to establish a habit, “ideally in the morning before barriers and life get in the way,” he said.

Eventually, physical activity itself should become intrinsically rewarding, Dr. Bond said.

“To limit sitting and encourage more movement throughout the day, we want to make the choice to engage in physical activity easier by adding environmental cues that encourage physical activity,” he said. “Conversely, we want to make the choice to engage in sedentary behavior more difficult by increasing the amount of effort that is required to engage in these behaviors.”

Dr. Robblee found Dr. Bond’s emphasis on sitting less – distinct from moving more – a helpful frame to consider with her patients. “I really like the approach of looking at it from that approach: in addition to how do we get you up and moving, how much time are you sitting, and how often can you break that up into smaller increments so that you’re up more often?” Dr. Robblee said. “That sometimes sounds less scary than ‘let’s get you exercising.’ So ‘let’s get you sitting a little bit less.’ I think that is something I might start to adopt.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.
 

People with migraine tend to have lower levels of physical activity than those without migraine despite the beneficial effects of physical activity on reducing frequency of migraine, according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

Though reliable research is sparse overall on how much physical activity people with migraine get, enough exists to reveal the need for clinicians to help patients identify ways to increase their levels of physical activity and make it a habit, said Dale S. Bond, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Miriam Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

He emphasized the need not only to replace sedentary time with physical activity but also to reduce sedentary time overall.

“It’s important to note that because active and sedentary represent different behavioral domains, people can still be active – that is, achieving recommended levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA] – but still be highly sedentary because they sit for long hours throughout the day,” Dr. Bond said. “This is important because MVPA will not necessarily eliminate the health risks of long hours of sitting.”

Dr. Bond reviewed the existing literature on physical activity and sedentary behavior among patients with migraine. His presentation, “Move More, Sit Less,” aimed at finding ways to incorporate more physical activity into the daily lives of those with migraine. Dr. Bond began by briefly reviewing the well-established benefits of physical activity, including healthy sleep; cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, mental, and cognitive health; and metabolic functioning.

“Physical activity and exercise in particular enhances the functioning of bodily systems, including those that have direct relevance to migraine in its comorbidities,” Dr. Bond said. “The positive systemic effects of exercise on bodily systems carries potential to reduce migraine severity and related disability and morbidity.”

He also explained the ways in which excessive sedentary time can exacerbate migraine triggers. “Long periods of interrupted sitting elevated levels of glucose and fat in the bloodstream, which in turn triggers the immune system to attack the body via inflammation,” Dr. Bond said. “Low grade chronic inflammation has long been hypothesized to play a role in migraine pathogenesis.”
 

Recommended levels of exercise

The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. An additional recommendation is at least 2 days per week of muscle strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups.

While neither of those organizations has specific guidelines on how much reduction of sedentary time is recommended, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology recommends limiting sedentary time to 8 or fewer hours per day.
 

Exercise and migraine

“Unfortunately, at present, we have very few studies from which to draw conclusions about the extent to which individuals with migraine adhere to physical activity and sedentary guidelines,” Dr. Bond said. Existing studies vary widely in sample types, study design, physical activity measure and MVPA outcome, including the type or definition of MVPA. “This wide variability in measures and outcomes makes it challenging to draw any conclusions about adherence to guidelines among individuals with migraine,” he said.

Existing evidence suggests anywhere from 32% to 66% of migraine patients are at least moderately active, though it’s not clear what constitutes “moderately active” behavior. It appears that activity levels of patients with migraine are low overall, but it’s less clear the extent to which these levels are lower than in controls given the paucity of evidence.

In one of the few studies using objective measures to assess physical activity in migraine patients, the daily level of MVPA was significantly lower in 25 women with migraine than in 25 age- and body mass index–matched women without migraine (P <. 003). Both groups had obesity. The same study found that virtually no women with migraine adhered to the guidelines recommending less than 8 hours a day of sedentary time, compared with 30% of women without migraine.

“Also, low physical activity and high sedentary levels appear to be consistent across headache and nonheadache days,” Dr. Bond said. “This finding in particular raises an interesting question: If migraine severity is not related to physical activity and sedentary time, what is it about migraine that contributes to an inactive and sedentary lifestyle?”

Dr. Bond noted that future research needs to include reports of frequency, duration, and intensity of activities performed as well as the percentage of participants who meet guidelines for physical activity and sedentary time. Ideally, these studies should include not only self-report but also objective measures of activity as well as assess sleep and identify barriers and facilitators to physical activity in patients.
 

Exercise avoidance

Dr. Bond described findings from survey of 100 women he conducted to better understand potential barriers and reported that 78% of patients report intentionally avoiding physical activity. These patients typically avoided it an average of 4 days per week, regardless of intensity, and additional survey findings found “that participants who reported any avoidance had stronger beliefs that physical activity would both trigger and worsen a migraine attack, compared with participants who reported no avoidance,” he said.

That finding matches the clinical experience of Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, who viewed the presentation but was not involved with it.

“They often feel that it is a trigger for worsening an attack or, for some people, can actually trigger an attack, and that they feel worse in the midst of an attack when they’re exercising,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview regarding her patients who exercise less frequently. “Since so many of the patients I see have a daily and constant headache, it’s about how they can get themselves to start to exercise when something makes them feel worse, even if it makes them feel better in the long run.”

Yet, experimental research suggests that physical activity is not necessarily a reliable trigger of migraine attacks and only worsens migraine in a minority of attacks, Dr. Bond said, revealing an interesting paradox: “While engaging in regular physical activity is an important migraine management strategy, most individuals in the study reported doing the exact opposite – that is, avoiding physical activity as a management strategy – and this strategy was associated with higher frequency and duration of attacks. Research from our group and others also suggested individuals with migraine could be overestimating the role that physical activity hasn’t triggering or worsening of attacks.”
 

Encouraging patients to exercise

Since the benefits of physical activity and limiting sedentary time outweigh the potential harms, “some physical activity is better than none,” Dr. Bond said. To help patients begin increasing their physical activity, he recommended advising them to start with small amounts and then gradually increase frequency, intensity, and duration over time.

Dr. Robblee follows a similar approach, taking into account each patient’s particular circumstances and any medications they’re taking, including the side effects of those medications.

“It’s about starting where they are,” Dr. Robblee said. “Some patients, despite having severe migraine, have built themselves up so they’re doing exercise three or four times per week, or every day, and I have other people who never exercise,” she said. “For those patients who are very sedentary, if I can get them to start with 5 minutes per week so they have that sense of accomplishment, then that’s where I start. Then slowly build it up over time. Like most things in the migraine world, I individualize it for the person.”

Dr. Bond offered the following specific tips to clinicians in educating and encouraging patients to increase physical activity:

• Educate patients regarding the short-and long-term benefits of moving more and sitting less, both for their migraines and for overall health.
• Correct misconceptions about the negative effects of physical activity as it relates to migraines.
• Personalize the rationale for physical activity to that patient’s specific values and personal goals.
• Encourage patients to use an activity tracker, both for tracking physical activity and sedentary time, and to monitor migraine attacks, stress, energy levels, and fatigue on days they do and do not exercise.
• Help patients set goals for eventually meeting MVPA recommendations and interrupting prolonged periods of sitting with brief movement breaks.
• Help patients identify rewards for meeting goals that are tied to the activity, such as new exercise clothing.
• Encourage patients to identify a consistent time for physical activity each day to establish a habit, “ideally in the morning before barriers and life get in the way,” he said.

Eventually, physical activity itself should become intrinsically rewarding, Dr. Bond said.

“To limit sitting and encourage more movement throughout the day, we want to make the choice to engage in physical activity easier by adding environmental cues that encourage physical activity,” he said. “Conversely, we want to make the choice to engage in sedentary behavior more difficult by increasing the amount of effort that is required to engage in these behaviors.”

Dr. Robblee found Dr. Bond’s emphasis on sitting less – distinct from moving more – a helpful frame to consider with her patients. “I really like the approach of looking at it from that approach: in addition to how do we get you up and moving, how much time are you sitting, and how often can you break that up into smaller increments so that you’re up more often?” Dr. Robblee said. “That sometimes sounds less scary than ‘let’s get you exercising.’ So ‘let’s get you sitting a little bit less.’ I think that is something I might start to adopt.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.
 

In the first clinical trial of a topical histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, remetinostat showed clinical efficacy across several basal cell carcinoma (BCC) tumor types, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Our results demonstrate a clinically significant decrease in tumor size in response to 6 weeks of topical 1% remetinostat therapy in 70% of per-protocol tumors, with 55% reaching complete pathological resolution,” James M. Kilgour, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Sarin Lab at Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the meeting.

Surgical excision is the preferred treatment for BCC, but there is still a need for noninvasive treatment options, Dr. Kilgour said. “Given the potential morbidity associated with excision, particularly for patients experiencing multiple or recurrent tumors, such as the immunosuppressed or patients with Gorlin syndrome, an effective and tolerable topical therapy would be a significant benefit,” he noted.

Previously, in an in silico screen experiment, Dr. Kilgour and colleagues identified HDAC inhibitors as a “top predicted therapeutic” for BCC treatment, and found that in mice studies, HDAC inhibitors were able to suppress the growth of BCC cell lines and BCC allografts.

Remetinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, is being investigated as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

HDAC inhibitors are thought to “alter expression of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors through epigenetic modification of histone and nonhistone proteins,” he noted.

To evaluate the efficacy of topical remetinostat for BCC, the investigators enrolled 30 patients with 49 BCC tumors in a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial. Participants had tumors that were greater than 5 mm in diameter and had been referred to surgery at Stanford before enrollment. Patients were a mean of 59 years old, 63% were men, and 90% were White; 59.2% of participants had tumors with a diameter greater than 10 mm, the rest had tumors with a diameter of 10 mm or less.

After the tumors were photographed and measured, participants received 6 weeks of topical remetinostat therapy, followed by final measurement and photography of the tumors at 8 weeks and surgical excision. Topical remetinostat 1% gel was applied three times per day under bandage occlusion.

Overall, 25 participants with 33 tumors were included in the per-protocol analysis. At 8 weeks, there was at least a 30% decrease in diameter from baseline for 69.7% of tumors in these patients, with 17 of 33 tumors showing a complete response by week 8.

Regarding tumor subtypes, there was a 100% overall response rate for the 6 superficial BCC tumors (1 partial response, 5 complete responses), a 68.2% ORR for the 22 nodular tumors (5 partial responses, 10 complete responses), and a 66.7% ORR for the 3 infiltrative tumors (no partial responses, 2 complete responses). There were no partial or complete responses for the two micronodular tumors.

Most adverse events in the study were localized drug reactions, with no serious or systemic adverse events, Dr. Kilgour noted, with 10 tumors demonstrating either no reaction or a grade 1 reaction, and 23 tumors having a grade 2 or grade 3 response.

The investigators also used imaging (ImageJ) software to evaluate the average decrease in cross-sectional tumor area. The results of the analysis showed an average decrease at 8 weeks from baseline of 71.5%. In addition, histological assessment at 8 weeks demonstrated that 54.8% of tumors had complete pathological resolution.

“In the future, we advocate for a follow-up blinded, randomized, controlled trial of remetinostat with greater participant diversity,” Dr. Kilgour said. “Specifically, greater power is needed to understand which histological subtypes of BCC will respond best to the treatment and we need to understand the long-term durability of tumor resolution.”

 

Remetinostat promising as topical BCC therapy

In an interview, Beth G. Goldstein, MD, a dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in Chapel Hill, N.C., noted that the preliminary study was “an exciting report of a safe, well-tolerated nonsurgical option for patients with superficial BCCs on the trunk and extremities,” which has potential to be used in the future for nonsuperficial BCCs. The study shows that superficial BCCs can respond at a rate of 100% on nonfacial areas, said Dr. Goldstein, who was not involved in the research. “These lesions can be quite large with higher chances of recurrence and difficulty with wound care.

“This type of directed therapy hopefully continues to be perfected for treatment of BCC that avoids scarring and is well tolerated,” she added.

Dr. Goldstein commented that complete pathological resolution of 54.8% “was still unacceptably low for the remaining tumor types.” For those cases, she said remetinostat could possibly “provide a topical option as an adjunctive treatment for potentially reducing the size of the BCC prior to surgical removal,” as an alternative to a systemic therapy like vismodegib (Erivedge).

Dr. Goldstein said the strengths of the study were in the variety of tumors, close follow-up with histologic evaluation and safety signals. In terms of limitations, she said whether there were any cases of Gorlin syndrome was not clear. In addition, at least 30% of BCCs have a mixed tumor type on Mohs surgery that differs from the original biopsy, and “there was no mention if the residual tumor remained with the same histology,” she said.

In the future, a large, randomized trial is warranted to stratify for Gorlin syndrome, patients who are immunosuppressed, and additional tumor types that were underrepresented in this study, such as micronodular tumors, Dr. Goldstein said. Future studies also should examine how remetinostat impacts BCC in facial areas, the effect of multiple applications, and how the therapy performs as an adjunctive treatment before surgery.

This study was funded by Medivir, the Damon Runyon Foundation, National Cancer Institute, an American Skin Association Hambrick Medical Student grant, and Stanford Medical Scholars. Dr. Kilgour and Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial disclosures.

In the first clinical trial of a topical histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, remetinostat showed clinical efficacy across several basal cell carcinoma (BCC) tumor types, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Our results demonstrate a clinically significant decrease in tumor size in response to 6 weeks of topical 1% remetinostat therapy in 70% of per-protocol tumors, with 55% reaching complete pathological resolution,” James M. Kilgour, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Sarin Lab at Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the meeting.

Surgical excision is the preferred treatment for BCC, but there is still a need for noninvasive treatment options, Dr. Kilgour said. “Given the potential morbidity associated with excision, particularly for patients experiencing multiple or recurrent tumors, such as the immunosuppressed or patients with Gorlin syndrome, an effective and tolerable topical therapy would be a significant benefit,” he noted.

Previously, in an in silico screen experiment, Dr. Kilgour and colleagues identified HDAC inhibitors as a “top predicted therapeutic” for BCC treatment, and found that in mice studies, HDAC inhibitors were able to suppress the growth of BCC cell lines and BCC allografts.

Remetinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, is being investigated as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

HDAC inhibitors are thought to “alter expression of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors through epigenetic modification of histone and nonhistone proteins,” he noted.

To evaluate the efficacy of topical remetinostat for BCC, the investigators enrolled 30 patients with 49 BCC tumors in a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial. Participants had tumors that were greater than 5 mm in diameter and had been referred to surgery at Stanford before enrollment. Patients were a mean of 59 years old, 63% were men, and 90% were White; 59.2% of participants had tumors with a diameter greater than 10 mm, the rest had tumors with a diameter of 10 mm or less.

After the tumors were photographed and measured, participants received 6 weeks of topical remetinostat therapy, followed by final measurement and photography of the tumors at 8 weeks and surgical excision. Topical remetinostat 1% gel was applied three times per day under bandage occlusion.

Overall, 25 participants with 33 tumors were included in the per-protocol analysis. At 8 weeks, there was at least a 30% decrease in diameter from baseline for 69.7% of tumors in these patients, with 17 of 33 tumors showing a complete response by week 8.

Regarding tumor subtypes, there was a 100% overall response rate for the 6 superficial BCC tumors (1 partial response, 5 complete responses), a 68.2% ORR for the 22 nodular tumors (5 partial responses, 10 complete responses), and a 66.7% ORR for the 3 infiltrative tumors (no partial responses, 2 complete responses). There were no partial or complete responses for the two micronodular tumors.

Most adverse events in the study were localized drug reactions, with no serious or systemic adverse events, Dr. Kilgour noted, with 10 tumors demonstrating either no reaction or a grade 1 reaction, and 23 tumors having a grade 2 or grade 3 response.

The investigators also used imaging (ImageJ) software to evaluate the average decrease in cross-sectional tumor area. The results of the analysis showed an average decrease at 8 weeks from baseline of 71.5%. In addition, histological assessment at 8 weeks demonstrated that 54.8% of tumors had complete pathological resolution.

“In the future, we advocate for a follow-up blinded, randomized, controlled trial of remetinostat with greater participant diversity,” Dr. Kilgour said. “Specifically, greater power is needed to understand which histological subtypes of BCC will respond best to the treatment and we need to understand the long-term durability of tumor resolution.”

 

Remetinostat promising as topical BCC therapy

In an interview, Beth G. Goldstein, MD, a dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in Chapel Hill, N.C., noted that the preliminary study was “an exciting report of a safe, well-tolerated nonsurgical option for patients with superficial BCCs on the trunk and extremities,” which has potential to be used in the future for nonsuperficial BCCs. The study shows that superficial BCCs can respond at a rate of 100% on nonfacial areas, said Dr. Goldstein, who was not involved in the research. “These lesions can be quite large with higher chances of recurrence and difficulty with wound care.

“This type of directed therapy hopefully continues to be perfected for treatment of BCC that avoids scarring and is well tolerated,” she added.

Dr. Goldstein commented that complete pathological resolution of 54.8% “was still unacceptably low for the remaining tumor types.” For those cases, she said remetinostat could possibly “provide a topical option as an adjunctive treatment for potentially reducing the size of the BCC prior to surgical removal,” as an alternative to a systemic therapy like vismodegib (Erivedge).

Dr. Goldstein said the strengths of the study were in the variety of tumors, close follow-up with histologic evaluation and safety signals. In terms of limitations, she said whether there were any cases of Gorlin syndrome was not clear. In addition, at least 30% of BCCs have a mixed tumor type on Mohs surgery that differs from the original biopsy, and “there was no mention if the residual tumor remained with the same histology,” she said.

In the future, a large, randomized trial is warranted to stratify for Gorlin syndrome, patients who are immunosuppressed, and additional tumor types that were underrepresented in this study, such as micronodular tumors, Dr. Goldstein said. Future studies also should examine how remetinostat impacts BCC in facial areas, the effect of multiple applications, and how the therapy performs as an adjunctive treatment before surgery.

This study was funded by Medivir, the Damon Runyon Foundation, National Cancer Institute, an American Skin Association Hambrick Medical Student grant, and Stanford Medical Scholars. Dr. Kilgour and Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial disclosures.

In the first clinical trial of a topical histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, remetinostat showed clinical efficacy across several basal cell carcinoma (BCC) tumor types, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Our results demonstrate a clinically significant decrease in tumor size in response to 6 weeks of topical 1% remetinostat therapy in 70% of per-protocol tumors, with 55% reaching complete pathological resolution,” James M. Kilgour, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Sarin Lab at Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the meeting.

Surgical excision is the preferred treatment for BCC, but there is still a need for noninvasive treatment options, Dr. Kilgour said. “Given the potential morbidity associated with excision, particularly for patients experiencing multiple or recurrent tumors, such as the immunosuppressed or patients with Gorlin syndrome, an effective and tolerable topical therapy would be a significant benefit,” he noted.

Previously, in an in silico screen experiment, Dr. Kilgour and colleagues identified HDAC inhibitors as a “top predicted therapeutic” for BCC treatment, and found that in mice studies, HDAC inhibitors were able to suppress the growth of BCC cell lines and BCC allografts.

Remetinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, is being investigated as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

HDAC inhibitors are thought to “alter expression of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors through epigenetic modification of histone and nonhistone proteins,” he noted.

To evaluate the efficacy of topical remetinostat for BCC, the investigators enrolled 30 patients with 49 BCC tumors in a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial. Participants had tumors that were greater than 5 mm in diameter and had been referred to surgery at Stanford before enrollment. Patients were a mean of 59 years old, 63% were men, and 90% were White; 59.2% of participants had tumors with a diameter greater than 10 mm, the rest had tumors with a diameter of 10 mm or less.

After the tumors were photographed and measured, participants received 6 weeks of topical remetinostat therapy, followed by final measurement and photography of the tumors at 8 weeks and surgical excision. Topical remetinostat 1% gel was applied three times per day under bandage occlusion.

Overall, 25 participants with 33 tumors were included in the per-protocol analysis. At 8 weeks, there was at least a 30% decrease in diameter from baseline for 69.7% of tumors in these patients, with 17 of 33 tumors showing a complete response by week 8.

Regarding tumor subtypes, there was a 100% overall response rate for the 6 superficial BCC tumors (1 partial response, 5 complete responses), a 68.2% ORR for the 22 nodular tumors (5 partial responses, 10 complete responses), and a 66.7% ORR for the 3 infiltrative tumors (no partial responses, 2 complete responses). There were no partial or complete responses for the two micronodular tumors.

Most adverse events in the study were localized drug reactions, with no serious or systemic adverse events, Dr. Kilgour noted, with 10 tumors demonstrating either no reaction or a grade 1 reaction, and 23 tumors having a grade 2 or grade 3 response.

The investigators also used imaging (ImageJ) software to evaluate the average decrease in cross-sectional tumor area. The results of the analysis showed an average decrease at 8 weeks from baseline of 71.5%. In addition, histological assessment at 8 weeks demonstrated that 54.8% of tumors had complete pathological resolution.

“In the future, we advocate for a follow-up blinded, randomized, controlled trial of remetinostat with greater participant diversity,” Dr. Kilgour said. “Specifically, greater power is needed to understand which histological subtypes of BCC will respond best to the treatment and we need to understand the long-term durability of tumor resolution.”

 

Remetinostat promising as topical BCC therapy

In an interview, Beth G. Goldstein, MD, a dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in Chapel Hill, N.C., noted that the preliminary study was “an exciting report of a safe, well-tolerated nonsurgical option for patients with superficial BCCs on the trunk and extremities,” which has potential to be used in the future for nonsuperficial BCCs. The study shows that superficial BCCs can respond at a rate of 100% on nonfacial areas, said Dr. Goldstein, who was not involved in the research. “These lesions can be quite large with higher chances of recurrence and difficulty with wound care.

“This type of directed therapy hopefully continues to be perfected for treatment of BCC that avoids scarring and is well tolerated,” she added.

Dr. Goldstein commented that complete pathological resolution of 54.8% “was still unacceptably low for the remaining tumor types.” For those cases, she said remetinostat could possibly “provide a topical option as an adjunctive treatment for potentially reducing the size of the BCC prior to surgical removal,” as an alternative to a systemic therapy like vismodegib (Erivedge).

Dr. Goldstein said the strengths of the study were in the variety of tumors, close follow-up with histologic evaluation and safety signals. In terms of limitations, she said whether there were any cases of Gorlin syndrome was not clear. In addition, at least 30% of BCCs have a mixed tumor type on Mohs surgery that differs from the original biopsy, and “there was no mention if the residual tumor remained with the same histology,” she said.

In the future, a large, randomized trial is warranted to stratify for Gorlin syndrome, patients who are immunosuppressed, and additional tumor types that were underrepresented in this study, such as micronodular tumors, Dr. Goldstein said. Future studies also should examine how remetinostat impacts BCC in facial areas, the effect of multiple applications, and how the therapy performs as an adjunctive treatment before surgery.

This study was funded by Medivir, the Damon Runyon Foundation, National Cancer Institute, an American Skin Association Hambrick Medical Student grant, and Stanford Medical Scholars. Dr. Kilgour and Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial disclosures.

ANSWER

The correct answer is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV; choice “d”).

DISCUSSION

ENV is a rare condition of advanced cutaneous hypertrophy secondary to a combination of contributing factors including: a sedentary lifestyle, obesity, chronic venous stasis, repeated bouts of lymphangitis, cellulitis, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Most commonly affecting the lower extremities, it is occasionally seen in other dependent areas such as the scrotum and the abdominal pannus. It is, essentially, an exaggerated form of cutaneous lymphedema that causes the skin to become increasingly thick and fibrotic, changes which also reduce blood flow to or from the area.

Despite its name, ENV is not associated with elephantiasis, more commonly known as lymphatic filariasis (choice “b”). Although that condition manifests with similar skin changes, it is typically seen only in those who live in tropical areas where these organisms are endemic—places this patient has never visited.

There was no reason to believe that these skin changes were attributable to warts (choice “a”). Biopsy would have settled that question but also would have run the risk of creating a nonhealing wound, which could easily turn into an ulcer.

Lymphedema (choice “c”) was clearly present, but it was quite advanced—far beyond what is usually seen in venous insufficiency. This diagnosis would not, by itself, explain the nodules or extreme fibrosis.

Other potential causes for these skin changes include postradiation and pretibial myxedema, which had been ruled out prior to the dermatology consult.

TREATMENT

As with simple venous insufficiency, treatment of ENV consists of compression, elevation, and weight loss. For this patient, the diuretics prescribed as part of her CHF treatment might help a bit, but her prognosis is guarded at best.

ANSWER

The correct answer is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV; choice “d”).

DISCUSSION

ENV is a rare condition of advanced cutaneous hypertrophy secondary to a combination of contributing factors including: a sedentary lifestyle, obesity, chronic venous stasis, repeated bouts of lymphangitis, cellulitis, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Most commonly affecting the lower extremities, it is occasionally seen in other dependent areas such as the scrotum and the abdominal pannus. It is, essentially, an exaggerated form of cutaneous lymphedema that causes the skin to become increasingly thick and fibrotic, changes which also reduce blood flow to or from the area.

Despite its name, ENV is not associated with elephantiasis, more commonly known as lymphatic filariasis (choice “b”). Although that condition manifests with similar skin changes, it is typically seen only in those who live in tropical areas where these organisms are endemic—places this patient has never visited.

There was no reason to believe that these skin changes were attributable to warts (choice “a”). Biopsy would have settled that question but also would have run the risk of creating a nonhealing wound, which could easily turn into an ulcer.

Lymphedema (choice “c”) was clearly present, but it was quite advanced—far beyond what is usually seen in venous insufficiency. This diagnosis would not, by itself, explain the nodules or extreme fibrosis.

Other potential causes for these skin changes include postradiation and pretibial myxedema, which had been ruled out prior to the dermatology consult.

TREATMENT

As with simple venous insufficiency, treatment of ENV consists of compression, elevation, and weight loss. For this patient, the diuretics prescribed as part of her CHF treatment might help a bit, but her prognosis is guarded at best.

ANSWER

The correct answer is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV; choice “d”).

DISCUSSION

ENV is a rare condition of advanced cutaneous hypertrophy secondary to a combination of contributing factors including: a sedentary lifestyle, obesity, chronic venous stasis, repeated bouts of lymphangitis, cellulitis, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Most commonly affecting the lower extremities, it is occasionally seen in other dependent areas such as the scrotum and the abdominal pannus. It is, essentially, an exaggerated form of cutaneous lymphedema that causes the skin to become increasingly thick and fibrotic, changes which also reduce blood flow to or from the area.

Despite its name, ENV is not associated with elephantiasis, more commonly known as lymphatic filariasis (choice “b”). Although that condition manifests with similar skin changes, it is typically seen only in those who live in tropical areas where these organisms are endemic—places this patient has never visited.

There was no reason to believe that these skin changes were attributable to warts (choice “a”). Biopsy would have settled that question but also would have run the risk of creating a nonhealing wound, which could easily turn into an ulcer.

Lymphedema (choice “c”) was clearly present, but it was quite advanced—far beyond what is usually seen in venous insufficiency. This diagnosis would not, by itself, explain the nodules or extreme fibrosis.

Other potential causes for these skin changes include postradiation and pretibial myxedema, which had been ruled out prior to the dermatology consult.

TREATMENT

As with simple venous insufficiency, treatment of ENV consists of compression, elevation, and weight loss. For this patient, the diuretics prescribed as part of her CHF treatment might help a bit, but her prognosis is guarded at best.

Ubrogepant showed effectiveness for acute treatment of migraine when used with an anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) preventive or with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), or both, according to preliminary findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“Because prevention [with mAbs] is rarely 100% effective, virtually everyone on preventive treatment needs to also take acute treatment,” presenter Richard B. Lipton, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview after his presentation. He explained that ubrogepant, a small-molecule CGRP receptor blocker, is approved for acute treatment of migraine, while mAbs, which block the CGRP receptor or CGRP itself, are approved for prevention. “Many people predicted that gepants would not work in people on CGRP-targeted mAbs because of overlapping mechanisms.”

Dr. Lipton himself was not surprised by the findings, however. “For me, the surprise was that ubrogepant worked so well,” he said.  
 

Novel data collection

Uniquely, his study used an entirely remote design with mobile applications to safely evaluate the drug’s real-world effectiveness in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prospective, observational study used the mobile app Migraine Buddy to collect data and assess outcomes from the use of 50 mg or 100 mg of ubrogepant along with a mAb, onabotA, or both.

In most migraine trials, researchers ask patients to track their symptoms in electronic diaries they learn how to use in the clinic.

“One disadvantage of this approach is that people usually need to carry two devices, the study device and their smartphone,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “In this study, people download an app at home to their smartphone and only need to carry one device. Though remote studies are particularly valuable in the time of pandemic, I believe that apps like Migraine Buddy are and will remain a valuable tool for addressing many research questions.”

Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, viewed the presentation and was also impressed with the novel use of a smartphone app to conduct the study. “I think that was a unique and cool demonstration of what can be done with the apps out there now,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “If you want to have really good tracking and more through tracking, apps like this are fabulous and are very patient forward and patient friendly.”
 

Combination therapy

The researchers invited 4,541 adults to participate in the study if they had previously reported at least three migraine attacks in the past 30 days and if they had treated at least three prior attacks with ubrogepant. The 483 participants who enrolled after consent and screening included 272 taking ubrogepant with mAb, 132 participants taking ubrogepant with onabotA, and 79 taking ubrogepant with both onabotA and mAb.

For 30 days, participants reported in the app’s diary their pain relief and the time elapsed since taking ubrogepant until they returned to normal functioning. Endpoints included meaningful pain relief – defined as “a level of pain relief that is meaningful to you” – and return to normal function at 2 and 4 hours.

During the study, 352 participants reported treating a migraine attack with a single dose of ubrogepant, and 78 participants treated migraine with two doses. The former group included 193 patients in the ubrogepant plus mAb group, 102 patients in the ubrogepant plus onabotA group, and 57 patients in the ubrogepant plus both group. Because of the limited enrollment in the second two arms, the data Dr. Lipton presented data only on the ubrogepant with mAb arm.

Most of this group (89.1%) was female, with an average age of 40 years and an average Migraine Disability Assessment score of 72.2. Most of the patients were taking erenumab (44.6%) or galcanezumab (34.2%) with the remaining patients taking fremanezumab (17.6%), eptinezumab (3.1%) or multiple mAbs (0.5%). Most participants (59.6%) were prescribed 100-mg ubrogepant dose while the remaining participants took 50 mg.

The analysis of the ubrogepant plus mAb group revealed that 64.2% of patients reported meaningful pain relief at 2 hours, and 84.5% had meaningful pain relief 4 hours after taking ubrogepant. The odds of achieving meaningful pain relief were statistically significant at both time points and remained significant after adjustment for participants’ age, Migraine Disability Assessment score and self-reported prescribed ubrogepant dose (P < .001).

“This study shows that in patients with migraine on CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies, ubrogepant is an acute treatment to consider for breakthrough headaches,” Dr. Lipton said. He added that they have now completed the study with more participants and begun analyzing all three groups.

“Full analyses will include data from multiple attacks, attacks treated with a second dose of ubrogepant, additional daily and 30-day effectiveness measures for use of ubrogepant with onabotA and use of ubrogepant with both onabotA and CGRP mAbs,” Dr. Lipton said.

While the findings did not surprise Dr. Robblee, she was happy to see a study that explicitly testing the combination of these treatments, especially given access challenges. “Right now, because treatments are new, we get a lot of insurance denials,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “It’s great to have a study out there that we can turn to and say, ‘hey, look, they had all these patients safely using these together.’ It’s going to help us improve access for patients.”

Though Dr. Robblee typically uses old-school pen-and-calendar diaries with her patients, she also sees potential for the use of apps going forward, just as she sees for virtual health care.

“I’ve found telemedicine in general to be a really great addition to the migraine world, and this plays into our ability to use telemedicine paired with tracking,” Dr. Robblee said. “In so many studies, we’re doing a diary anyway, so if there are standard diaries and programs we’re all using, that would be a nice way to do these.”

She notes that most symptom tracking for pain is subjective already, and these apps often include the options to print out the data or to export or transfer it electronically to physicians. “It’s giving us meaningful data,” she said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Lipton has received honoraria or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Teva, Vector and Vedanta Research. He holds stock options in Biohaven and Ctrl M. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem.

Ubrogepant showed effectiveness for acute treatment of migraine when used with an anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) preventive or with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), or both, according to preliminary findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“Because prevention [with mAbs] is rarely 100% effective, virtually everyone on preventive treatment needs to also take acute treatment,” presenter Richard B. Lipton, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview after his presentation. He explained that ubrogepant, a small-molecule CGRP receptor blocker, is approved for acute treatment of migraine, while mAbs, which block the CGRP receptor or CGRP itself, are approved for prevention. “Many people predicted that gepants would not work in people on CGRP-targeted mAbs because of overlapping mechanisms.”

Dr. Lipton himself was not surprised by the findings, however. “For me, the surprise was that ubrogepant worked so well,” he said.  
 

Novel data collection

Uniquely, his study used an entirely remote design with mobile applications to safely evaluate the drug’s real-world effectiveness in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prospective, observational study used the mobile app Migraine Buddy to collect data and assess outcomes from the use of 50 mg or 100 mg of ubrogepant along with a mAb, onabotA, or both.

In most migraine trials, researchers ask patients to track their symptoms in electronic diaries they learn how to use in the clinic.

“One disadvantage of this approach is that people usually need to carry two devices, the study device and their smartphone,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “In this study, people download an app at home to their smartphone and only need to carry one device. Though remote studies are particularly valuable in the time of pandemic, I believe that apps like Migraine Buddy are and will remain a valuable tool for addressing many research questions.”

Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, viewed the presentation and was also impressed with the novel use of a smartphone app to conduct the study. “I think that was a unique and cool demonstration of what can be done with the apps out there now,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “If you want to have really good tracking and more through tracking, apps like this are fabulous and are very patient forward and patient friendly.”
 

Combination therapy

The researchers invited 4,541 adults to participate in the study if they had previously reported at least three migraine attacks in the past 30 days and if they had treated at least three prior attacks with ubrogepant. The 483 participants who enrolled after consent and screening included 272 taking ubrogepant with mAb, 132 participants taking ubrogepant with onabotA, and 79 taking ubrogepant with both onabotA and mAb.

For 30 days, participants reported in the app’s diary their pain relief and the time elapsed since taking ubrogepant until they returned to normal functioning. Endpoints included meaningful pain relief – defined as “a level of pain relief that is meaningful to you” – and return to normal function at 2 and 4 hours.

During the study, 352 participants reported treating a migraine attack with a single dose of ubrogepant, and 78 participants treated migraine with two doses. The former group included 193 patients in the ubrogepant plus mAb group, 102 patients in the ubrogepant plus onabotA group, and 57 patients in the ubrogepant plus both group. Because of the limited enrollment in the second two arms, the data Dr. Lipton presented data only on the ubrogepant with mAb arm.

Most of this group (89.1%) was female, with an average age of 40 years and an average Migraine Disability Assessment score of 72.2. Most of the patients were taking erenumab (44.6%) or galcanezumab (34.2%) with the remaining patients taking fremanezumab (17.6%), eptinezumab (3.1%) or multiple mAbs (0.5%). Most participants (59.6%) were prescribed 100-mg ubrogepant dose while the remaining participants took 50 mg.

The analysis of the ubrogepant plus mAb group revealed that 64.2% of patients reported meaningful pain relief at 2 hours, and 84.5% had meaningful pain relief 4 hours after taking ubrogepant. The odds of achieving meaningful pain relief were statistically significant at both time points and remained significant after adjustment for participants’ age, Migraine Disability Assessment score and self-reported prescribed ubrogepant dose (P < .001).

“This study shows that in patients with migraine on CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies, ubrogepant is an acute treatment to consider for breakthrough headaches,” Dr. Lipton said. He added that they have now completed the study with more participants and begun analyzing all three groups.

“Full analyses will include data from multiple attacks, attacks treated with a second dose of ubrogepant, additional daily and 30-day effectiveness measures for use of ubrogepant with onabotA and use of ubrogepant with both onabotA and CGRP mAbs,” Dr. Lipton said.

While the findings did not surprise Dr. Robblee, she was happy to see a study that explicitly testing the combination of these treatments, especially given access challenges. “Right now, because treatments are new, we get a lot of insurance denials,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “It’s great to have a study out there that we can turn to and say, ‘hey, look, they had all these patients safely using these together.’ It’s going to help us improve access for patients.”

Though Dr. Robblee typically uses old-school pen-and-calendar diaries with her patients, she also sees potential for the use of apps going forward, just as she sees for virtual health care.

“I’ve found telemedicine in general to be a really great addition to the migraine world, and this plays into our ability to use telemedicine paired with tracking,” Dr. Robblee said. “In so many studies, we’re doing a diary anyway, so if there are standard diaries and programs we’re all using, that would be a nice way to do these.”

She notes that most symptom tracking for pain is subjective already, and these apps often include the options to print out the data or to export or transfer it electronically to physicians. “It’s giving us meaningful data,” she said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Lipton has received honoraria or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Teva, Vector and Vedanta Research. He holds stock options in Biohaven and Ctrl M. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem.

Ubrogepant showed effectiveness for acute treatment of migraine when used with an anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) preventive or with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), or both, according to preliminary findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“Because prevention [with mAbs] is rarely 100% effective, virtually everyone on preventive treatment needs to also take acute treatment,” presenter Richard B. Lipton, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview after his presentation. He explained that ubrogepant, a small-molecule CGRP receptor blocker, is approved for acute treatment of migraine, while mAbs, which block the CGRP receptor or CGRP itself, are approved for prevention. “Many people predicted that gepants would not work in people on CGRP-targeted mAbs because of overlapping mechanisms.”

Dr. Lipton himself was not surprised by the findings, however. “For me, the surprise was that ubrogepant worked so well,” he said.  
 

Novel data collection

Uniquely, his study used an entirely remote design with mobile applications to safely evaluate the drug’s real-world effectiveness in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prospective, observational study used the mobile app Migraine Buddy to collect data and assess outcomes from the use of 50 mg or 100 mg of ubrogepant along with a mAb, onabotA, or both.

In most migraine trials, researchers ask patients to track their symptoms in electronic diaries they learn how to use in the clinic.

“One disadvantage of this approach is that people usually need to carry two devices, the study device and their smartphone,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “In this study, people download an app at home to their smartphone and only need to carry one device. Though remote studies are particularly valuable in the time of pandemic, I believe that apps like Migraine Buddy are and will remain a valuable tool for addressing many research questions.”

Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, viewed the presentation and was also impressed with the novel use of a smartphone app to conduct the study. “I think that was a unique and cool demonstration of what can be done with the apps out there now,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “If you want to have really good tracking and more through tracking, apps like this are fabulous and are very patient forward and patient friendly.”
 

Combination therapy

The researchers invited 4,541 adults to participate in the study if they had previously reported at least three migraine attacks in the past 30 days and if they had treated at least three prior attacks with ubrogepant. The 483 participants who enrolled after consent and screening included 272 taking ubrogepant with mAb, 132 participants taking ubrogepant with onabotA, and 79 taking ubrogepant with both onabotA and mAb.

For 30 days, participants reported in the app’s diary their pain relief and the time elapsed since taking ubrogepant until they returned to normal functioning. Endpoints included meaningful pain relief – defined as “a level of pain relief that is meaningful to you” – and return to normal function at 2 and 4 hours.

During the study, 352 participants reported treating a migraine attack with a single dose of ubrogepant, and 78 participants treated migraine with two doses. The former group included 193 patients in the ubrogepant plus mAb group, 102 patients in the ubrogepant plus onabotA group, and 57 patients in the ubrogepant plus both group. Because of the limited enrollment in the second two arms, the data Dr. Lipton presented data only on the ubrogepant with mAb arm.

Most of this group (89.1%) was female, with an average age of 40 years and an average Migraine Disability Assessment score of 72.2. Most of the patients were taking erenumab (44.6%) or galcanezumab (34.2%) with the remaining patients taking fremanezumab (17.6%), eptinezumab (3.1%) or multiple mAbs (0.5%). Most participants (59.6%) were prescribed 100-mg ubrogepant dose while the remaining participants took 50 mg.

The analysis of the ubrogepant plus mAb group revealed that 64.2% of patients reported meaningful pain relief at 2 hours, and 84.5% had meaningful pain relief 4 hours after taking ubrogepant. The odds of achieving meaningful pain relief were statistically significant at both time points and remained significant after adjustment for participants’ age, Migraine Disability Assessment score and self-reported prescribed ubrogepant dose (P < .001).

“This study shows that in patients with migraine on CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies, ubrogepant is an acute treatment to consider for breakthrough headaches,” Dr. Lipton said. He added that they have now completed the study with more participants and begun analyzing all three groups.

“Full analyses will include data from multiple attacks, attacks treated with a second dose of ubrogepant, additional daily and 30-day effectiveness measures for use of ubrogepant with onabotA and use of ubrogepant with both onabotA and CGRP mAbs,” Dr. Lipton said.

While the findings did not surprise Dr. Robblee, she was happy to see a study that explicitly testing the combination of these treatments, especially given access challenges. “Right now, because treatments are new, we get a lot of insurance denials,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “It’s great to have a study out there that we can turn to and say, ‘hey, look, they had all these patients safely using these together.’ It’s going to help us improve access for patients.”

Though Dr. Robblee typically uses old-school pen-and-calendar diaries with her patients, she also sees potential for the use of apps going forward, just as she sees for virtual health care.

“I’ve found telemedicine in general to be a really great addition to the migraine world, and this plays into our ability to use telemedicine paired with tracking,” Dr. Robblee said. “In so many studies, we’re doing a diary anyway, so if there are standard diaries and programs we’re all using, that would be a nice way to do these.”

She notes that most symptom tracking for pain is subjective already, and these apps often include the options to print out the data or to export or transfer it electronically to physicians. “It’s giving us meaningful data,” she said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Lipton has received honoraria or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Teva, Vector and Vedanta Research. He holds stock options in Biohaven and Ctrl M. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

Converge 2021 session

Febrile Infant Update

Presenter

Russell J. McCulloh, MD

Session summary

Infections in infants aged younger than 90 days have been the subject of intense study in pediatric hospital medicine for many years. With the guidance of our talented presenter Dr. Russell McCulloh of Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., the audience explored the historical perspective and evolution of this scientific question, including successes, special situations, newer screening tests, and description of cutting-edge scoring tools and platforms.

The challenge – Tens of thousands of infants present for care in the setting of fever each year. We know that our physical exam and history-taking skills are unlikely to be helpful in risk stratification. We have been guided by the desire to separate serious bacterial infection (SBI: bone infection, meningitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, bacteremia, enteritis) from invasive bacterial infection (IBI: meningitis and bacteremia). Data has shown that no test is 100% sensitive or specific, therefore we have to balance risk of disease to cost and invasiveness of tests. Important questions include whether to test and how to stratify by age, who to admit, and who to provide antibiotics.

The wins and exceptions – Fortunately, the early Boston, Philadelphia, and Rochester criteria set the stage for safely reducing testing. The current American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines for infants aged 29-90 days allows for lumbar puncture to be optional knowing that a look back using prior criteria identified no cases of meningitis in the low risk group. Similarly, in low-risk infants aged less that 29 days in nearly 4,000 cases there were just 2 infants with meningitis. Universal screening of moms for Group B Streptococcus with delivery of antibiotics in appropriate cases has dramatically decreased incidence of SBI. The Hib and pneumovax vaccines have likewise decreased incidence of SBI. Exceptions persist, including knowledge that infants with herpes simplex virus disease will not have fever in 50% of cases and that risk of HSV transmission is highest (25%-60% transmission) in mothers with primary disease. Given risk of HSV CNS disease after 1 week of age, in any high-risk infant less than 21 days, the mantra remains to test and treat.

The cutting edge – Thanks to ongoing research, we now have the PECARN and REVISE study groups to further aid decision-making. With PECARN we know that SBI in infants is extremely unlikely (negative predictive value, 99.7%) with a negative urinalysis , absolute neutrophil count less than 4,090, and procalcitonin less than 1.71. REVISE has revealed that infants with positive viral testing are unlikely to have SBI (7%-12%), particularly with influenza and RSV disease. Procalcitonin has also recently been shown to be an effective tool to rule out disease with the highest negative predictive value among available inflammatory markers. The just-published Aronson rule identifies a scoring system for IBI (using age less than 21 days/1pt; temp 38-38.4° C/2pt; >38.5° C/4pt; abnormal urinalysis/3pt; and absolute neutrophil count >5185/2pt) where any score greater than2 provides a sensitivity of 98.8% and NPV in validation studies of 99.4%. Likewise, multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing of spinal fluid has allowed for additional insight in pretreated cases and has helped us to remove antibiotic treatment from cases where parechovirus and enterovirus are positive because of the low risk for concomitant bacterial meningitis. As we await the release of revised national American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, it is safe to say great progress has been made in the care of young febrile infants with shorter length of stay and fewer tests for all.

Key takeaways

• Numerous screening tests, rules, and scoring tools have been created to improve identification of infants with IBI, a low-frequency, high-morbidity event. The most recent with negative predictive values of 99.7% and 99.4% are the PECARN and Aronson scoring tools.
• Recent studies of the febrile infant population indicate that the odds of UTI or bacteremia in infants with respiratory symptoms is low, particularly for RSV and influenza.
• Among newer tests developed, a negative procalcitonin has the highest negative predictive value.
• Viral pathogens identified on cerebrospinal fluid molecular testing can be helpful in pretreated cases and indicative of low likelihood of bacterial meningitis allowing for observation off of antibiotics.

Dr. King is a hospitalist, associate director for medical education and associate program director for the pediatrics residency program at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis. She has shared some of her resident teaching, presentation skills, and peer-coaching work on a national level.

Converge 2021 session

Febrile Infant Update

Presenter

Russell J. McCulloh, MD

Session summary

Infections in infants aged younger than 90 days have been the subject of intense study in pediatric hospital medicine for many years. With the guidance of our talented presenter Dr. Russell McCulloh of Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., the audience explored the historical perspective and evolution of this scientific question, including successes, special situations, newer screening tests, and description of cutting-edge scoring tools and platforms.

The challenge – Tens of thousands of infants present for care in the setting of fever each year. We know that our physical exam and history-taking skills are unlikely to be helpful in risk stratification. We have been guided by the desire to separate serious bacterial infection (SBI: bone infection, meningitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, bacteremia, enteritis) from invasive bacterial infection (IBI: meningitis and bacteremia). Data has shown that no test is 100% sensitive or specific, therefore we have to balance risk of disease to cost and invasiveness of tests. Important questions include whether to test and how to stratify by age, who to admit, and who to provide antibiotics.

The wins and exceptions – Fortunately, the early Boston, Philadelphia, and Rochester criteria set the stage for safely reducing testing. The current American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines for infants aged 29-90 days allows for lumbar puncture to be optional knowing that a look back using prior criteria identified no cases of meningitis in the low risk group. Similarly, in low-risk infants aged less that 29 days in nearly 4,000 cases there were just 2 infants with meningitis. Universal screening of moms for Group B Streptococcus with delivery of antibiotics in appropriate cases has dramatically decreased incidence of SBI. The Hib and pneumovax vaccines have likewise decreased incidence of SBI. Exceptions persist, including knowledge that infants with herpes simplex virus disease will not have fever in 50% of cases and that risk of HSV transmission is highest (25%-60% transmission) in mothers with primary disease. Given risk of HSV CNS disease after 1 week of age, in any high-risk infant less than 21 days, the mantra remains to test and treat.

The cutting edge – Thanks to ongoing research, we now have the PECARN and REVISE study groups to further aid decision-making. With PECARN we know that SBI in infants is extremely unlikely (negative predictive value, 99.7%) with a negative urinalysis , absolute neutrophil count less than 4,090, and procalcitonin less than 1.71. REVISE has revealed that infants with positive viral testing are unlikely to have SBI (7%-12%), particularly with influenza and RSV disease. Procalcitonin has also recently been shown to be an effective tool to rule out disease with the highest negative predictive value among available inflammatory markers. The just-published Aronson rule identifies a scoring system for IBI (using age less than 21 days/1pt; temp 38-38.4° C/2pt; >38.5° C/4pt; abnormal urinalysis/3pt; and absolute neutrophil count >5185/2pt) where any score greater than2 provides a sensitivity of 98.8% and NPV in validation studies of 99.4%. Likewise, multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing of spinal fluid has allowed for additional insight in pretreated cases and has helped us to remove antibiotic treatment from cases where parechovirus and enterovirus are positive because of the low risk for concomitant bacterial meningitis. As we await the release of revised national American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, it is safe to say great progress has been made in the care of young febrile infants with shorter length of stay and fewer tests for all.

Key takeaways

• Numerous screening tests, rules, and scoring tools have been created to improve identification of infants with IBI, a low-frequency, high-morbidity event. The most recent with negative predictive values of 99.7% and 99.4% are the PECARN and Aronson scoring tools.
• Recent studies of the febrile infant population indicate that the odds of UTI or bacteremia in infants with respiratory symptoms is low, particularly for RSV and influenza.
• Among newer tests developed, a negative procalcitonin has the highest negative predictive value.
• Viral pathogens identified on cerebrospinal fluid molecular testing can be helpful in pretreated cases and indicative of low likelihood of bacterial meningitis allowing for observation off of antibiotics.

Dr. King is a hospitalist, associate director for medical education and associate program director for the pediatrics residency program at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis. She has shared some of her resident teaching, presentation skills, and peer-coaching work on a national level.

Converge 2021 session

Febrile Infant Update

Presenter

Russell J. McCulloh, MD

Session summary

Infections in infants aged younger than 90 days have been the subject of intense study in pediatric hospital medicine for many years. With the guidance of our talented presenter Dr. Russell McCulloh of Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., the audience explored the historical perspective and evolution of this scientific question, including successes, special situations, newer screening tests, and description of cutting-edge scoring tools and platforms.

The challenge – Tens of thousands of infants present for care in the setting of fever each year. We know that our physical exam and history-taking skills are unlikely to be helpful in risk stratification. We have been guided by the desire to separate serious bacterial infection (SBI: bone infection, meningitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, bacteremia, enteritis) from invasive bacterial infection (IBI: meningitis and bacteremia). Data has shown that no test is 100% sensitive or specific, therefore we have to balance risk of disease to cost and invasiveness of tests. Important questions include whether to test and how to stratify by age, who to admit, and who to provide antibiotics.

The wins and exceptions – Fortunately, the early Boston, Philadelphia, and Rochester criteria set the stage for safely reducing testing. The current American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines for infants aged 29-90 days allows for lumbar puncture to be optional knowing that a look back using prior criteria identified no cases of meningitis in the low risk group. Similarly, in low-risk infants aged less that 29 days in nearly 4,000 cases there were just 2 infants with meningitis. Universal screening of moms for Group B Streptococcus with delivery of antibiotics in appropriate cases has dramatically decreased incidence of SBI. The Hib and pneumovax vaccines have likewise decreased incidence of SBI. Exceptions persist, including knowledge that infants with herpes simplex virus disease will not have fever in 50% of cases and that risk of HSV transmission is highest (25%-60% transmission) in mothers with primary disease. Given risk of HSV CNS disease after 1 week of age, in any high-risk infant less than 21 days, the mantra remains to test and treat.

The cutting edge – Thanks to ongoing research, we now have the PECARN and REVISE study groups to further aid decision-making. With PECARN we know that SBI in infants is extremely unlikely (negative predictive value, 99.7%) with a negative urinalysis , absolute neutrophil count less than 4,090, and procalcitonin less than 1.71. REVISE has revealed that infants with positive viral testing are unlikely to have SBI (7%-12%), particularly with influenza and RSV disease. Procalcitonin has also recently been shown to be an effective tool to rule out disease with the highest negative predictive value among available inflammatory markers. The just-published Aronson rule identifies a scoring system for IBI (using age less than 21 days/1pt; temp 38-38.4° C/2pt; >38.5° C/4pt; abnormal urinalysis/3pt; and absolute neutrophil count >5185/2pt) where any score greater than2 provides a sensitivity of 98.8% and NPV in validation studies of 99.4%. Likewise, multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing of spinal fluid has allowed for additional insight in pretreated cases and has helped us to remove antibiotic treatment from cases where parechovirus and enterovirus are positive because of the low risk for concomitant bacterial meningitis. As we await the release of revised national American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, it is safe to say great progress has been made in the care of young febrile infants with shorter length of stay and fewer tests for all.

Key takeaways

• Numerous screening tests, rules, and scoring tools have been created to improve identification of infants with IBI, a low-frequency, high-morbidity event. The most recent with negative predictive values of 99.7% and 99.4% are the PECARN and Aronson scoring tools.
• Recent studies of the febrile infant population indicate that the odds of UTI or bacteremia in infants with respiratory symptoms is low, particularly for RSV and influenza.
• Among newer tests developed, a negative procalcitonin has the highest negative predictive value.
• Viral pathogens identified on cerebrospinal fluid molecular testing can be helpful in pretreated cases and indicative of low likelihood of bacterial meningitis allowing for observation off of antibiotics.

Dr. King is a hospitalist, associate director for medical education and associate program director for the pediatrics residency program at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis. She has shared some of her resident teaching, presentation skills, and peer-coaching work on a national level.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Opioids were prescribed most often for vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, according to a study that used national ambulatory care data to evaluate pain medication use at dermatology visits.

“Overall, opioid prescribing rates among dermatologists were low. However, dermatologists should remain aware of risk factors for long-term opioid use and consider using nonnarcotic or nonpharmacologic interventions when possible,” Sarah P. Pourali, a medical student at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, where she presented the results.

Ms. Pourali said that although Mohs surgery and dermatologic procedures are the focus of “much of the literature” concerning opioid use in dermatology, there are limited data on medication prescribing patterns for other skin conditions treated by dermatologists.

She and her colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2009 to 2016 on 288,462,610 weighted dermatology visits. The researchers used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes to identify dermatologic diseases. They also identified and grouped oral pain medication into the following categories: opiate analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and gabapentin. A linear regression analysis was used to evaluate pain medicine prescribing each year, and the researchers used a logistic regression analysis to explore how opiate prescriptions were connected to patient clinical characteristics. The analysis was adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and region.

Overall, most dermatology visits were for patients older than 65 years (36.2%) and 45-64 years old (32.1%). Over half of the dermatologist visits were for women (56.4%) and most (92.2%) visits were for patients who were White (5.1 % were for patients who were Black); most were non-Hispanic or Latino (93.5%). Most dermatology visits were in the South (35.4%) and West (25.2%), followed by the Northeast (21.9%) and Midwest (17.5%).

Opioids were prescribed in 1.3% of the visits, Ms. Pourali said. In addition, 4.7% of visits included an NSAID prescription, 0.7% an acetaminophen prescription, and 0.6% a gabapentin prescription.

Dermatologic procedure visits accounted for 43.1% of opioid prescriptions, she noted. The most common skin conditions for which opioids were prescribed included vitiligo (10.3%), hemangioma (3.8%), pemphigus (3.6%), atopic dermatitis (3.4%), and psoriasis (2.5%).

Although patients older than 65 years accounted for 36.2% of visits to dermatologists, 58.5% of opioids prescribed by dermatologists were for patients in this age group. “We hypothesize that this may be due to a higher proportion of older patients requiring skin cancer surgeries where a lot of opioids are prescribed within dermatology,” Ms. Pourali said.

The highest population-adjusted prescription rates for opiates were in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, which “partially corroborates” previous studies that have found “higher rates of opioid prescribing in the southern and western U.S.,” she noted.

When evaluating risk-factors for long-term opiate use, Ms. Pourali and colleagues found opioids were also prescribed in 13.2% of visits where a benzodiazepine was prescribed (adjusted odds ratio, 8.17; 95% confidence interval, 5.3-12.7), 8.4% of visits where the patient had a substance abuse disorder (adjusted OR, 9.40; 95% CI, 2.0-44.4), 5.2% of visits with a patient who had depression (adjusted OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.0-5.4), and 2.4% of visits with a patient who used tobacco (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1).

Consider nonopioid postoperative pain management options

In an interview, Sailesh Konda, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology and director of Mohs surgery and surgical dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not involved with the research, noted the finding in the study that vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, AD, and psoriasis were diagnoses with the highest rates of opioid prescription was surprising. “In general, these are conditions that are not routinely managed with opioids,” he said.

NAMCS contains a primary diagnosis field and space for four additional diagnoses such as chronic conditions, as well as thirty fields for medications. “If an opioid was prescribed at a visit, it could have been prescribed for any of the diagnoses related to the visit,” Dr. Konda said. “Additionally, for those opioid prescriptions associated with dermatologic procedures, it would have been helpful to have a breakdown of the specific procedures.”

Dr. Konda compared these results to a recent study of opioid prescribing patterns in the dermatology Medicare population, which found that 93.9% of the top 1% of opioid prescribers were dermatologists working in a surgical practice.

He said that recommendations for opioid prescribing should be developed for general dermatology as they have been for Mohs surgery and dermatologic surgery. For dermatologists currently prescribing opioids, he recommended monitoring prescribing patterns and to “consider nonopioid interventions, such as acetaminophen plus ibuprofen, which has been found to effectively control postoperative pain with fewer complications.”

Ms. Pourali reports no relevant financial disclosures. Her coauthors included the principal investigator, April Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Konda reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Opioids were prescribed most often for vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, according to a study that used national ambulatory care data to evaluate pain medication use at dermatology visits.

“Overall, opioid prescribing rates among dermatologists were low. However, dermatologists should remain aware of risk factors for long-term opioid use and consider using nonnarcotic or nonpharmacologic interventions when possible,” Sarah P. Pourali, a medical student at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, where she presented the results.

Ms. Pourali said that although Mohs surgery and dermatologic procedures are the focus of “much of the literature” concerning opioid use in dermatology, there are limited data on medication prescribing patterns for other skin conditions treated by dermatologists.

She and her colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2009 to 2016 on 288,462,610 weighted dermatology visits. The researchers used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes to identify dermatologic diseases. They also identified and grouped oral pain medication into the following categories: opiate analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and gabapentin. A linear regression analysis was used to evaluate pain medicine prescribing each year, and the researchers used a logistic regression analysis to explore how opiate prescriptions were connected to patient clinical characteristics. The analysis was adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and region.

Overall, most dermatology visits were for patients older than 65 years (36.2%) and 45-64 years old (32.1%). Over half of the dermatologist visits were for women (56.4%) and most (92.2%) visits were for patients who were White (5.1 % were for patients who were Black); most were non-Hispanic or Latino (93.5%). Most dermatology visits were in the South (35.4%) and West (25.2%), followed by the Northeast (21.9%) and Midwest (17.5%).

Opioids were prescribed in 1.3% of the visits, Ms. Pourali said. In addition, 4.7% of visits included an NSAID prescription, 0.7% an acetaminophen prescription, and 0.6% a gabapentin prescription.

Dermatologic procedure visits accounted for 43.1% of opioid prescriptions, she noted. The most common skin conditions for which opioids were prescribed included vitiligo (10.3%), hemangioma (3.8%), pemphigus (3.6%), atopic dermatitis (3.4%), and psoriasis (2.5%).

Although patients older than 65 years accounted for 36.2% of visits to dermatologists, 58.5% of opioids prescribed by dermatologists were for patients in this age group. “We hypothesize that this may be due to a higher proportion of older patients requiring skin cancer surgeries where a lot of opioids are prescribed within dermatology,” Ms. Pourali said.

The highest population-adjusted prescription rates for opiates were in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, which “partially corroborates” previous studies that have found “higher rates of opioid prescribing in the southern and western U.S.,” she noted.

When evaluating risk-factors for long-term opiate use, Ms. Pourali and colleagues found opioids were also prescribed in 13.2% of visits where a benzodiazepine was prescribed (adjusted odds ratio, 8.17; 95% confidence interval, 5.3-12.7), 8.4% of visits where the patient had a substance abuse disorder (adjusted OR, 9.40; 95% CI, 2.0-44.4), 5.2% of visits with a patient who had depression (adjusted OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.0-5.4), and 2.4% of visits with a patient who used tobacco (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1).

Consider nonopioid postoperative pain management options

In an interview, Sailesh Konda, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology and director of Mohs surgery and surgical dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not involved with the research, noted the finding in the study that vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, AD, and psoriasis were diagnoses with the highest rates of opioid prescription was surprising. “In general, these are conditions that are not routinely managed with opioids,” he said.

NAMCS contains a primary diagnosis field and space for four additional diagnoses such as chronic conditions, as well as thirty fields for medications. “If an opioid was prescribed at a visit, it could have been prescribed for any of the diagnoses related to the visit,” Dr. Konda said. “Additionally, for those opioid prescriptions associated with dermatologic procedures, it would have been helpful to have a breakdown of the specific procedures.”

Dr. Konda compared these results to a recent study of opioid prescribing patterns in the dermatology Medicare population, which found that 93.9% of the top 1% of opioid prescribers were dermatologists working in a surgical practice.

He said that recommendations for opioid prescribing should be developed for general dermatology as they have been for Mohs surgery and dermatologic surgery. For dermatologists currently prescribing opioids, he recommended monitoring prescribing patterns and to “consider nonopioid interventions, such as acetaminophen plus ibuprofen, which has been found to effectively control postoperative pain with fewer complications.”

Ms. Pourali reports no relevant financial disclosures. Her coauthors included the principal investigator, April Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Konda reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Opioids were prescribed most often for vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, according to a study that used national ambulatory care data to evaluate pain medication use at dermatology visits.

“Overall, opioid prescribing rates among dermatologists were low. However, dermatologists should remain aware of risk factors for long-term opioid use and consider using nonnarcotic or nonpharmacologic interventions when possible,” Sarah P. Pourali, a medical student at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, where she presented the results.

Ms. Pourali said that although Mohs surgery and dermatologic procedures are the focus of “much of the literature” concerning opioid use in dermatology, there are limited data on medication prescribing patterns for other skin conditions treated by dermatologists.

She and her colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2009 to 2016 on 288,462,610 weighted dermatology visits. The researchers used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes to identify dermatologic diseases. They also identified and grouped oral pain medication into the following categories: opiate analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and gabapentin. A linear regression analysis was used to evaluate pain medicine prescribing each year, and the researchers used a logistic regression analysis to explore how opiate prescriptions were connected to patient clinical characteristics. The analysis was adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and region.

Overall, most dermatology visits were for patients older than 65 years (36.2%) and 45-64 years old (32.1%). Over half of the dermatologist visits were for women (56.4%) and most (92.2%) visits were for patients who were White (5.1 % were for patients who were Black); most were non-Hispanic or Latino (93.5%). Most dermatology visits were in the South (35.4%) and West (25.2%), followed by the Northeast (21.9%) and Midwest (17.5%).

Opioids were prescribed in 1.3% of the visits, Ms. Pourali said. In addition, 4.7% of visits included an NSAID prescription, 0.7% an acetaminophen prescription, and 0.6% a gabapentin prescription.

Dermatologic procedure visits accounted for 43.1% of opioid prescriptions, she noted. The most common skin conditions for which opioids were prescribed included vitiligo (10.3%), hemangioma (3.8%), pemphigus (3.6%), atopic dermatitis (3.4%), and psoriasis (2.5%).

Although patients older than 65 years accounted for 36.2% of visits to dermatologists, 58.5% of opioids prescribed by dermatologists were for patients in this age group. “We hypothesize that this may be due to a higher proportion of older patients requiring skin cancer surgeries where a lot of opioids are prescribed within dermatology,” Ms. Pourali said.

The highest population-adjusted prescription rates for opiates were in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, which “partially corroborates” previous studies that have found “higher rates of opioid prescribing in the southern and western U.S.,” she noted.

When evaluating risk-factors for long-term opiate use, Ms. Pourali and colleagues found opioids were also prescribed in 13.2% of visits where a benzodiazepine was prescribed (adjusted odds ratio, 8.17; 95% confidence interval, 5.3-12.7), 8.4% of visits where the patient had a substance abuse disorder (adjusted OR, 9.40; 95% CI, 2.0-44.4), 5.2% of visits with a patient who had depression (adjusted OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.0-5.4), and 2.4% of visits with a patient who used tobacco (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1).

Consider nonopioid postoperative pain management options

In an interview, Sailesh Konda, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology and director of Mohs surgery and surgical dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not involved with the research, noted the finding in the study that vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, AD, and psoriasis were diagnoses with the highest rates of opioid prescription was surprising. “In general, these are conditions that are not routinely managed with opioids,” he said.

NAMCS contains a primary diagnosis field and space for four additional diagnoses such as chronic conditions, as well as thirty fields for medications. “If an opioid was prescribed at a visit, it could have been prescribed for any of the diagnoses related to the visit,” Dr. Konda said. “Additionally, for those opioid prescriptions associated with dermatologic procedures, it would have been helpful to have a breakdown of the specific procedures.”

Dr. Konda compared these results to a recent study of opioid prescribing patterns in the dermatology Medicare population, which found that 93.9% of the top 1% of opioid prescribers were dermatologists working in a surgical practice.

He said that recommendations for opioid prescribing should be developed for general dermatology as they have been for Mohs surgery and dermatologic surgery. For dermatologists currently prescribing opioids, he recommended monitoring prescribing patterns and to “consider nonopioid interventions, such as acetaminophen plus ibuprofen, which has been found to effectively control postoperative pain with fewer complications.”

Ms. Pourali reports no relevant financial disclosures. Her coauthors included the principal investigator, April Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Konda reports no relevant financial disclosures.