Case Report

A 67-year-old Black woman presented with a long-standing history of pruritus and “scaly thick bumps” on the lower extremities. Upon further questioning, she reported a 30-year history of placing her feet by an electric space heater and daily baths in “very hot” water. A review of systems and medical history were unremarkable, and the patient was not on any medications. Initial physical examination of the lower extremities demonstrated lichenified plaques and scattered, firm, ulcerated nodules surrounded by mottled postinflammatory hyperpigmentation with sharp demarcation at the midcalf bilaterally (Figure 1).

Subsequently, the patient was shown to have multiple actinic keratoses and SCCs, both in situ and invasive, within the areas of EAI (Figure 2). The patient had no actinic keratoses or other cutaneous malignant neoplasms elsewhere on the skin. Management of actinic keratoses, SCC in situ, and invasive SCC on the lower extremities included numerous excisions, treatment with liquid nitrogen, and topical 5-fluorouracil under occlusion. The patient continues to be monitored frequently.

Comment

Presentation of EAI
Erythema ab igne is a cutaneous reaction resulting from prolonged exposure to an infrared heat source at temperatures insufficient to cause a burn (37 °F to 113 °F [2.78 °C to 45 °C]). Initially presenting as transient blanchable erythema, chronic heat exposure induces persistent areas of reticular erythema, often accompanied by hyperpigmentation, epidermal atrophy, and telangiectases.¹ Erythema ab igne is most commonly reported on the anterior shins, inner thighs, and back, and it is historically associated with open fires and coal stoves. More recently, other implicated causes include heating pads, laptop computers, heated furniture, and electric space heaters.^2,3 Erythema ab igne often is asymptomatic but can present with pruritus and a burning sensation. Treatment involves removal of the inciting heat source, which might allow resolution of early-stage lesions. Long-term exposure leads to permanent skin discoloration and on occasion predisposes patients to malignant transformation.³

Histopathology of EAI
Histologically, later stages of EAI can demonstrate focal hyperkeratosis with dyskeratosis and increased dermal elastosis, similar to actinic damage, with a predisposition to develop SCC.² Notably, early reports document various heat-induced carcinomas, including kangri-burn cancers among Kashmiris, kang thermal cancers in China, and kairo cancers in Japan.^2,4,5 More recent reports identify cutaneous carcinomas arising specifically in the setting of EAI, most commonly SCC³; Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma are less commonly reported malignancies.^6,7 Given the frequency of malignant transformation within sites of thermal exposure, chronic heat exposure may share a common pathophysiology with SCC and other neoplasms, including Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.

SCC in Black Individuals
Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in Black individuals, with a notably higher incidence in high-risk subpopulations (immunosuppressed patients). Unlike White individuals, SCCs frequently occur in non–sun-exposed areas in Black individuals and are associated with unique risk factors, such as human papillomavirus, as demonstrated in Black transplant patients.⁸ A retrospective study examining the characteristics of SCC on the legs of Black individuals documented atypical hyperkeratotic neoplasms surrounded by abnormal pigmentation and mottling of surrounding skin.⁹ Morphologic skin changes could be the result of chronic thermal damage: Numerous patients reported a history of leg warming from an open heat source. Other patients had an actual diagnosis of EAI. The predilection for less-exposed skin suggests UV radiation (UVR) might be a less important predisposing risk factor for this racial group, and the increased mortality associated with SCC in Black individuals might represent a more aggressive nature to this subset of SCCs.⁹ Furthermore, infrared radiation (IRR), such as fires and coal stoves, might have the potential to stimulate skin changes similar to those associated with UVR and ultimately malignant changes.

Infrared Radiation
Compared to UVR, little is known about the biological effects of IRR (wavelength, 760 nm to 1 mm), to which human skin is constantly exposed from natural and artificial light sources. Early studies have demonstrated the carcinogenic potential of IRR, observing an augmentation of UVR-induced tumorigenesis in the presence of heat. More recently, IRR was observed to stimulate increased collagenase production from dermal fibroblasts and influence pathways (extracellular signal-related kinases 1/2 and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases) in a similar fashion to UVB and UVA.^10,11 Therefore, IRR might be capable of eliciting molecular responses comparable to those caused by UVR.

Conclusion

Although SCC in association with EAI is uncommon, historical reports of thermal cancers and scientific observations of IRR-induced biological and molecular effects support EAI as a predisposing risk factor for SCC and the important need for close monitoring by physicians. Studies are needed to further elucidate the pathologic effects of IRR, with more promotion of caution relating to thermal exposure.

Case Report

A 67-year-old Black woman presented with a long-standing history of pruritus and “scaly thick bumps” on the lower extremities. Upon further questioning, she reported a 30-year history of placing her feet by an electric space heater and daily baths in “very hot” water. A review of systems and medical history were unremarkable, and the patient was not on any medications. Initial physical examination of the lower extremities demonstrated lichenified plaques and scattered, firm, ulcerated nodules surrounded by mottled postinflammatory hyperpigmentation with sharp demarcation at the midcalf bilaterally (Figure 1).

Subsequently, the patient was shown to have multiple actinic keratoses and SCCs, both in situ and invasive, within the areas of EAI (Figure 2). The patient had no actinic keratoses or other cutaneous malignant neoplasms elsewhere on the skin. Management of actinic keratoses, SCC in situ, and invasive SCC on the lower extremities included numerous excisions, treatment with liquid nitrogen, and topical 5-fluorouracil under occlusion. The patient continues to be monitored frequently.

Comment

Presentation of EAI
Erythema ab igne is a cutaneous reaction resulting from prolonged exposure to an infrared heat source at temperatures insufficient to cause a burn (37 °F to 113 °F [2.78 °C to 45 °C]). Initially presenting as transient blanchable erythema, chronic heat exposure induces persistent areas of reticular erythema, often accompanied by hyperpigmentation, epidermal atrophy, and telangiectases.¹ Erythema ab igne is most commonly reported on the anterior shins, inner thighs, and back, and it is historically associated with open fires and coal stoves. More recently, other implicated causes include heating pads, laptop computers, heated furniture, and electric space heaters.^2,3 Erythema ab igne often is asymptomatic but can present with pruritus and a burning sensation. Treatment involves removal of the inciting heat source, which might allow resolution of early-stage lesions. Long-term exposure leads to permanent skin discoloration and on occasion predisposes patients to malignant transformation.³

Histopathology of EAI
Histologically, later stages of EAI can demonstrate focal hyperkeratosis with dyskeratosis and increased dermal elastosis, similar to actinic damage, with a predisposition to develop SCC.² Notably, early reports document various heat-induced carcinomas, including kangri-burn cancers among Kashmiris, kang thermal cancers in China, and kairo cancers in Japan.^2,4,5 More recent reports identify cutaneous carcinomas arising specifically in the setting of EAI, most commonly SCC³; Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma are less commonly reported malignancies.^6,7 Given the frequency of malignant transformation within sites of thermal exposure, chronic heat exposure may share a common pathophysiology with SCC and other neoplasms, including Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.

SCC in Black Individuals
Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in Black individuals, with a notably higher incidence in high-risk subpopulations (immunosuppressed patients). Unlike White individuals, SCCs frequently occur in non–sun-exposed areas in Black individuals and are associated with unique risk factors, such as human papillomavirus, as demonstrated in Black transplant patients.⁸ A retrospective study examining the characteristics of SCC on the legs of Black individuals documented atypical hyperkeratotic neoplasms surrounded by abnormal pigmentation and mottling of surrounding skin.⁹ Morphologic skin changes could be the result of chronic thermal damage: Numerous patients reported a history of leg warming from an open heat source. Other patients had an actual diagnosis of EAI. The predilection for less-exposed skin suggests UV radiation (UVR) might be a less important predisposing risk factor for this racial group, and the increased mortality associated with SCC in Black individuals might represent a more aggressive nature to this subset of SCCs.⁹ Furthermore, infrared radiation (IRR), such as fires and coal stoves, might have the potential to stimulate skin changes similar to those associated with UVR and ultimately malignant changes.

Infrared Radiation
Compared to UVR, little is known about the biological effects of IRR (wavelength, 760 nm to 1 mm), to which human skin is constantly exposed from natural and artificial light sources. Early studies have demonstrated the carcinogenic potential of IRR, observing an augmentation of UVR-induced tumorigenesis in the presence of heat. More recently, IRR was observed to stimulate increased collagenase production from dermal fibroblasts and influence pathways (extracellular signal-related kinases 1/2 and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases) in a similar fashion to UVB and UVA.^10,11 Therefore, IRR might be capable of eliciting molecular responses comparable to those caused by UVR.

Conclusion

Although SCC in association with EAI is uncommon, historical reports of thermal cancers and scientific observations of IRR-induced biological and molecular effects support EAI as a predisposing risk factor for SCC and the important need for close monitoring by physicians. Studies are needed to further elucidate the pathologic effects of IRR, with more promotion of caution relating to thermal exposure.

Case Report

A 67-year-old Black woman presented with a long-standing history of pruritus and “scaly thick bumps” on the lower extremities. Upon further questioning, she reported a 30-year history of placing her feet by an electric space heater and daily baths in “very hot” water. A review of systems and medical history were unremarkable, and the patient was not on any medications. Initial physical examination of the lower extremities demonstrated lichenified plaques and scattered, firm, ulcerated nodules surrounded by mottled postinflammatory hyperpigmentation with sharp demarcation at the midcalf bilaterally (Figure 1).

Subsequently, the patient was shown to have multiple actinic keratoses and SCCs, both in situ and invasive, within the areas of EAI (Figure 2). The patient had no actinic keratoses or other cutaneous malignant neoplasms elsewhere on the skin. Management of actinic keratoses, SCC in situ, and invasive SCC on the lower extremities included numerous excisions, treatment with liquid nitrogen, and topical 5-fluorouracil under occlusion. The patient continues to be monitored frequently.

Comment

Presentation of EAI
Erythema ab igne is a cutaneous reaction resulting from prolonged exposure to an infrared heat source at temperatures insufficient to cause a burn (37 °F to 113 °F [2.78 °C to 45 °C]). Initially presenting as transient blanchable erythema, chronic heat exposure induces persistent areas of reticular erythema, often accompanied by hyperpigmentation, epidermal atrophy, and telangiectases.¹ Erythema ab igne is most commonly reported on the anterior shins, inner thighs, and back, and it is historically associated with open fires and coal stoves. More recently, other implicated causes include heating pads, laptop computers, heated furniture, and electric space heaters.^2,3 Erythema ab igne often is asymptomatic but can present with pruritus and a burning sensation. Treatment involves removal of the inciting heat source, which might allow resolution of early-stage lesions. Long-term exposure leads to permanent skin discoloration and on occasion predisposes patients to malignant transformation.³

Histopathology of EAI
Histologically, later stages of EAI can demonstrate focal hyperkeratosis with dyskeratosis and increased dermal elastosis, similar to actinic damage, with a predisposition to develop SCC.² Notably, early reports document various heat-induced carcinomas, including kangri-burn cancers among Kashmiris, kang thermal cancers in China, and kairo cancers in Japan.^2,4,5 More recent reports identify cutaneous carcinomas arising specifically in the setting of EAI, most commonly SCC³; Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma are less commonly reported malignancies.^6,7 Given the frequency of malignant transformation within sites of thermal exposure, chronic heat exposure may share a common pathophysiology with SCC and other neoplasms, including Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.

SCC in Black Individuals
Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in Black individuals, with a notably higher incidence in high-risk subpopulations (immunosuppressed patients). Unlike White individuals, SCCs frequently occur in non–sun-exposed areas in Black individuals and are associated with unique risk factors, such as human papillomavirus, as demonstrated in Black transplant patients.⁸ A retrospective study examining the characteristics of SCC on the legs of Black individuals documented atypical hyperkeratotic neoplasms surrounded by abnormal pigmentation and mottling of surrounding skin.⁹ Morphologic skin changes could be the result of chronic thermal damage: Numerous patients reported a history of leg warming from an open heat source. Other patients had an actual diagnosis of EAI. The predilection for less-exposed skin suggests UV radiation (UVR) might be a less important predisposing risk factor for this racial group, and the increased mortality associated with SCC in Black individuals might represent a more aggressive nature to this subset of SCCs.⁹ Furthermore, infrared radiation (IRR), such as fires and coal stoves, might have the potential to stimulate skin changes similar to those associated with UVR and ultimately malignant changes.

Infrared Radiation
Compared to UVR, little is known about the biological effects of IRR (wavelength, 760 nm to 1 mm), to which human skin is constantly exposed from natural and artificial light sources. Early studies have demonstrated the carcinogenic potential of IRR, observing an augmentation of UVR-induced tumorigenesis in the presence of heat. More recently, IRR was observed to stimulate increased collagenase production from dermal fibroblasts and influence pathways (extracellular signal-related kinases 1/2 and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases) in a similar fashion to UVB and UVA.^10,11 Therefore, IRR might be capable of eliciting molecular responses comparable to those caused by UVR.

Conclusion

Although SCC in association with EAI is uncommon, historical reports of thermal cancers and scientific observations of IRR-induced biological and molecular effects support EAI as a predisposing risk factor for SCC and the important need for close monitoring by physicians. Studies are needed to further elucidate the pathologic effects of IRR, with more promotion of caution relating to thermal exposure.

The ability of advanced practice providers (APPs) to practice independently has been a recent topic of discussion among both the medical community and legislatures. Advanced practice provider is an umbrella term that includes physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses, including nurse practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. Since Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, APPs can bill and be paid independently if they are not practicing incident to a physician or in a facility.¹ Currently, NPs can practice independently in 27 states and Washington, DC. Physician assistants are required to practice under the supervision of a physician; however, the extent of supervision varies by state.² Advocates for broadening the scope of practice for APPs argue that NPs and PAs will help to fill the physician deficit, particularly in primary care and rural regions. It has been projected that by 2025, the United States will require an additional 46,000 primary care providers to meet growing medical needs.³

On October 3, 2019, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors, in which he proposed an alternative to “Medicare for all.”⁴ This order instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a regulation that would “eliminate burdensome regulatory billing requirements, conditions of participation, supervision requirements, benefit definitions and all other licensure requirements . . . that are more stringent than applicable Federal or State laws require and that limit professionals from practicing at the top of their field.” Furthermore, President Trump proposed that “services provided by clinicians, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, are appropriately reimbursed in accordance with the work performed rather than the clinician’s occupation.”⁴

In response to the executive order, members of the medical community utilized Reddit, an online public forum, and Medscape, a medical news website, to vocalize opinions on the executive order.^5,6 Our goal was to analyze the characteristics of those who participated in the discussion and their points of view on the plan to broaden the scope of practice and change the Medicare reimbursement plans for APPs.

Methods

All comments on the October 3, 2019, Medscape article, “Trump Executive Order Seeks Proposals on Medicare Pay for NPs, PAs,”⁵ and the corresponding Reddit discussion on this article⁶ were reviewed and characterized by the type of commenter—doctor of medicine (MD)/doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), NP/RN/certified registered nurse anesthetist, PA, medical student, PA student, NP student, pharmacist, dietician, emergency medical technician, scribe, or unknown—as identified in their username, title, or in the text of the comment. Gender of the commenter was recorded when provided. Commenters were further grouped by their support or lack of support for the executive order based on their comments. Patients’ comments underwent further qualitative analysis to identify general themes.

All analyses were conducted with RStudio statistical software. Analyses were reported as proportions. Variables were compared by χ² and Fisher exact tests. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 352 comments (130 on Medscape and 222 on Reddit) posted by 155 unique users (57 on Medscape and 98 on Reddit) were included in the analysis (Table 1). Of the 51 Medscape commenters who identified a gender, 60.7% were male and 39.2% were female. Reddit commenters did not identify a gender. Commenters included MD and DO physicians (43.2%), NPs/RNs/certified registered nurse anesthetists (13.5%), medical students (11.0%), PAs (9.7%), pharmacists (3.2%), NP students (1.9%), PA students (1.3%), emergency medical technicians (1.3%), dieticians (0.6%), and scribes (0.6%). Physicians (54.5% vs 36.73%; P=.032) and NPs (22.8% vs 8.2%; P=.009) made up a larger percentage of all comments on Medscape compared to Reddit, where medical students were more prevalent (16.3% vs 1.8%; P=.005). Nursing students and PA students more commonly posted on Reddit (4.08% of Reddit commenters vs 1.75% of Medscape commenters), though this difference did not achieve statistical significance.

A majority of commenters did not support the executive order, with only 20.6% approving of the plan, 54.8% disapproving, and 24.5% remaining neutral (Figure). Advanced practice providers—NPs, PAs, NP/PA students, and APPs not otherwise specified—were more likely to support the executive order, with 52.3% voicing their support compared to only 4.8% of physicians and medical students expressing support (P<.0001). Similarly, physicians and medical students were more likely to disapprove of the order, with 75.0% voicing concerns compared to only 27.3% of APPs dissenting (P<.0001). A similar percentage of both physicians/medical students and APPs remained neutral (20.2% vs 18.2%). Commenters on Medscape were more likely to voice support for the executive order than those on Reddit (36.8% vs 11.2%; P=.0002), likely due to the higher percentage of NP and PA comments on the former.

Comment

President Trump’s executive order follows a trend of decreasing required oversight of APPs; however, this study indicates that these policies would face pushback from many physicians. These results are consistent with a prior study that analyzed 309 comments on an article in The New York Times made by physicians, APPs, patients, and laypeople, in which 24.7% had mistrust of APPs and 14.9% had concerns over APP supervision compared to 9% who supported APP independent practice.⁷ It is clear that there is a serious divide in opinion that threatens to harm the existing collaborations between physicians and APPs.

Primary Care Coverage With APPs
In the comments analyzed in our study, supporters of the executive order argued that an increase in APPs practicing independently would provide much-needed primary care coverage to patients in underserved regions. However, APPs are instead well represented across most specialties, with a majority in dermatology. Of the 4 million procedures billed independently by APPs in 2012, 54.8% were in the field of dermatology.⁸ The employment of APPs by dermatologists has grown from 28% of practices in 2005 to 46% in 2014, making this issue of particular importance to our field.^9,10

Education and Training of APPs
In our analysis, many physicians cited concerns about the education and training of APPs. Dermatologists receive approximately 10,000 hours of training over the course of residency. Per the American Academy of Physician Assistants, PAs spend more than 2000 hours over a 26-month period on various clinical rotations, “with an emphasis on primary care.”¹¹ There are multiple routes to become an advanced practice RN with varying classroom and clinical requirements, with one pathway requiring a bachelor of science in nursing, followed by a master’s degree requiring 500 to 700 hours of supervised clinical work. Although the Dermatology Nurses’ Association and Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants (http://www.dermpa.org) provide online modules, annual conventions with training workshops, and short fellowship programs, neither have formal guidelines on minimum requirements to diagnose and treat dermatologic conditions.² Despite the lack of formalized dermatologic training, APPs billed for 13.4% of all dermatology procedures submitted to Medicare in 2015.¹²

Quality of Patient Care
In our study, physicians also voiced concern over reduced quality of patient care. In a review of 33,647 skin cancer screening examinations, PAs biopsied an average of 39.4 skin lesions, while dermatologists biopsied an average of 25.4 skin lesions to diagnose 1 case of melanoma.¹³ In addition, nonphysician providers accounted for 37.9% of defendants in 174 legal cases related to injury from cutaneous laser surgery.¹⁴ Before further laws are enacted regarding the independent practice and billing by NPs and PAs in the field of dermatology, further research is needed to address patient outcomes and safety.

Limitations
This study was subject to several limitations. Because of a lack of other sources offering discussions on the topic, our sample size was limited. Self-identification of users presents a challenge, as an individual can pose as a physician or APP without validation of credentials. Although great care was taken to minimize bias, grouping comments into broad categories may misinterpret a poster’s intentions. Furthermore, the data collected represent only a small proportion of the medical community—readers of Medscape and Reddit who have the motivation to create a user profile and post a comment rather than put their efforts into lobbying or contacting legislators. Those posting may have stronger political opinions or more poignant experiences than the general public. Although selection bias impacts the generalizability of our findings, this analysis allows for deeper insight into the beliefs of a vocal subset of the medical community who may not have the opportunity to present their opinions elsewhere.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the response to President Trump’s executive order reveals that a rollout of these regulations would be met with strong opposition. On October 29, 2019, more than 100 professional organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, wrote a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that eloquently echoed the sentiments of the physician commenters in this study: “Scope of practice of health care professionals should be based on standardized, adequate training and demonstrated competence in patient care, not politics. While all health care professionals share an important role in providing care to patients, their skillset is not interchangeable with that of a fully trained physician.”¹⁵ The executive order would lead to a major shift in the current medical landscape, and as such, it is prudent that these concerns are addressed.

The ability of advanced practice providers (APPs) to practice independently has been a recent topic of discussion among both the medical community and legislatures. Advanced practice provider is an umbrella term that includes physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses, including nurse practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. Since Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, APPs can bill and be paid independently if they are not practicing incident to a physician or in a facility.¹ Currently, NPs can practice independently in 27 states and Washington, DC. Physician assistants are required to practice under the supervision of a physician; however, the extent of supervision varies by state.² Advocates for broadening the scope of practice for APPs argue that NPs and PAs will help to fill the physician deficit, particularly in primary care and rural regions. It has been projected that by 2025, the United States will require an additional 46,000 primary care providers to meet growing medical needs.³

On October 3, 2019, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors, in which he proposed an alternative to “Medicare for all.”⁴ This order instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a regulation that would “eliminate burdensome regulatory billing requirements, conditions of participation, supervision requirements, benefit definitions and all other licensure requirements . . . that are more stringent than applicable Federal or State laws require and that limit professionals from practicing at the top of their field.” Furthermore, President Trump proposed that “services provided by clinicians, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, are appropriately reimbursed in accordance with the work performed rather than the clinician’s occupation.”⁴

In response to the executive order, members of the medical community utilized Reddit, an online public forum, and Medscape, a medical news website, to vocalize opinions on the executive order.^5,6 Our goal was to analyze the characteristics of those who participated in the discussion and their points of view on the plan to broaden the scope of practice and change the Medicare reimbursement plans for APPs.

Methods

All comments on the October 3, 2019, Medscape article, “Trump Executive Order Seeks Proposals on Medicare Pay for NPs, PAs,”⁵ and the corresponding Reddit discussion on this article⁶ were reviewed and characterized by the type of commenter—doctor of medicine (MD)/doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), NP/RN/certified registered nurse anesthetist, PA, medical student, PA student, NP student, pharmacist, dietician, emergency medical technician, scribe, or unknown—as identified in their username, title, or in the text of the comment. Gender of the commenter was recorded when provided. Commenters were further grouped by their support or lack of support for the executive order based on their comments. Patients’ comments underwent further qualitative analysis to identify general themes.

All analyses were conducted with RStudio statistical software. Analyses were reported as proportions. Variables were compared by χ² and Fisher exact tests. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 352 comments (130 on Medscape and 222 on Reddit) posted by 155 unique users (57 on Medscape and 98 on Reddit) were included in the analysis (Table 1). Of the 51 Medscape commenters who identified a gender, 60.7% were male and 39.2% were female. Reddit commenters did not identify a gender. Commenters included MD and DO physicians (43.2%), NPs/RNs/certified registered nurse anesthetists (13.5%), medical students (11.0%), PAs (9.7%), pharmacists (3.2%), NP students (1.9%), PA students (1.3%), emergency medical technicians (1.3%), dieticians (0.6%), and scribes (0.6%). Physicians (54.5% vs 36.73%; P=.032) and NPs (22.8% vs 8.2%; P=.009) made up a larger percentage of all comments on Medscape compared to Reddit, where medical students were more prevalent (16.3% vs 1.8%; P=.005). Nursing students and PA students more commonly posted on Reddit (4.08% of Reddit commenters vs 1.75% of Medscape commenters), though this difference did not achieve statistical significance.

A majority of commenters did not support the executive order, with only 20.6% approving of the plan, 54.8% disapproving, and 24.5% remaining neutral (Figure). Advanced practice providers—NPs, PAs, NP/PA students, and APPs not otherwise specified—were more likely to support the executive order, with 52.3% voicing their support compared to only 4.8% of physicians and medical students expressing support (P<.0001). Similarly, physicians and medical students were more likely to disapprove of the order, with 75.0% voicing concerns compared to only 27.3% of APPs dissenting (P<.0001). A similar percentage of both physicians/medical students and APPs remained neutral (20.2% vs 18.2%). Commenters on Medscape were more likely to voice support for the executive order than those on Reddit (36.8% vs 11.2%; P=.0002), likely due to the higher percentage of NP and PA comments on the former.

Comment

President Trump’s executive order follows a trend of decreasing required oversight of APPs; however, this study indicates that these policies would face pushback from many physicians. These results are consistent with a prior study that analyzed 309 comments on an article in The New York Times made by physicians, APPs, patients, and laypeople, in which 24.7% had mistrust of APPs and 14.9% had concerns over APP supervision compared to 9% who supported APP independent practice.⁷ It is clear that there is a serious divide in opinion that threatens to harm the existing collaborations between physicians and APPs.

Primary Care Coverage With APPs
In the comments analyzed in our study, supporters of the executive order argued that an increase in APPs practicing independently would provide much-needed primary care coverage to patients in underserved regions. However, APPs are instead well represented across most specialties, with a majority in dermatology. Of the 4 million procedures billed independently by APPs in 2012, 54.8% were in the field of dermatology.⁸ The employment of APPs by dermatologists has grown from 28% of practices in 2005 to 46% in 2014, making this issue of particular importance to our field.^9,10

Education and Training of APPs
In our analysis, many physicians cited concerns about the education and training of APPs. Dermatologists receive approximately 10,000 hours of training over the course of residency. Per the American Academy of Physician Assistants, PAs spend more than 2000 hours over a 26-month period on various clinical rotations, “with an emphasis on primary care.”¹¹ There are multiple routes to become an advanced practice RN with varying classroom and clinical requirements, with one pathway requiring a bachelor of science in nursing, followed by a master’s degree requiring 500 to 700 hours of supervised clinical work. Although the Dermatology Nurses’ Association and Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants (http://www.dermpa.org) provide online modules, annual conventions with training workshops, and short fellowship programs, neither have formal guidelines on minimum requirements to diagnose and treat dermatologic conditions.² Despite the lack of formalized dermatologic training, APPs billed for 13.4% of all dermatology procedures submitted to Medicare in 2015.¹²

Quality of Patient Care
In our study, physicians also voiced concern over reduced quality of patient care. In a review of 33,647 skin cancer screening examinations, PAs biopsied an average of 39.4 skin lesions, while dermatologists biopsied an average of 25.4 skin lesions to diagnose 1 case of melanoma.¹³ In addition, nonphysician providers accounted for 37.9% of defendants in 174 legal cases related to injury from cutaneous laser surgery.¹⁴ Before further laws are enacted regarding the independent practice and billing by NPs and PAs in the field of dermatology, further research is needed to address patient outcomes and safety.

Limitations
This study was subject to several limitations. Because of a lack of other sources offering discussions on the topic, our sample size was limited. Self-identification of users presents a challenge, as an individual can pose as a physician or APP without validation of credentials. Although great care was taken to minimize bias, grouping comments into broad categories may misinterpret a poster’s intentions. Furthermore, the data collected represent only a small proportion of the medical community—readers of Medscape and Reddit who have the motivation to create a user profile and post a comment rather than put their efforts into lobbying or contacting legislators. Those posting may have stronger political opinions or more poignant experiences than the general public. Although selection bias impacts the generalizability of our findings, this analysis allows for deeper insight into the beliefs of a vocal subset of the medical community who may not have the opportunity to present their opinions elsewhere.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the response to President Trump’s executive order reveals that a rollout of these regulations would be met with strong opposition. On October 29, 2019, more than 100 professional organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, wrote a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that eloquently echoed the sentiments of the physician commenters in this study: “Scope of practice of health care professionals should be based on standardized, adequate training and demonstrated competence in patient care, not politics. While all health care professionals share an important role in providing care to patients, their skillset is not interchangeable with that of a fully trained physician.”¹⁵ The executive order would lead to a major shift in the current medical landscape, and as such, it is prudent that these concerns are addressed.

The ability of advanced practice providers (APPs) to practice independently has been a recent topic of discussion among both the medical community and legislatures. Advanced practice provider is an umbrella term that includes physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses, including nurse practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. Since Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, APPs can bill and be paid independently if they are not practicing incident to a physician or in a facility.¹ Currently, NPs can practice independently in 27 states and Washington, DC. Physician assistants are required to practice under the supervision of a physician; however, the extent of supervision varies by state.² Advocates for broadening the scope of practice for APPs argue that NPs and PAs will help to fill the physician deficit, particularly in primary care and rural regions. It has been projected that by 2025, the United States will require an additional 46,000 primary care providers to meet growing medical needs.³

On October 3, 2019, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors, in which he proposed an alternative to “Medicare for all.”⁴ This order instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a regulation that would “eliminate burdensome regulatory billing requirements, conditions of participation, supervision requirements, benefit definitions and all other licensure requirements . . . that are more stringent than applicable Federal or State laws require and that limit professionals from practicing at the top of their field.” Furthermore, President Trump proposed that “services provided by clinicians, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, are appropriately reimbursed in accordance with the work performed rather than the clinician’s occupation.”⁴

In response to the executive order, members of the medical community utilized Reddit, an online public forum, and Medscape, a medical news website, to vocalize opinions on the executive order.^5,6 Our goal was to analyze the characteristics of those who participated in the discussion and their points of view on the plan to broaden the scope of practice and change the Medicare reimbursement plans for APPs.

Methods

All comments on the October 3, 2019, Medscape article, “Trump Executive Order Seeks Proposals on Medicare Pay for NPs, PAs,”⁵ and the corresponding Reddit discussion on this article⁶ were reviewed and characterized by the type of commenter—doctor of medicine (MD)/doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), NP/RN/certified registered nurse anesthetist, PA, medical student, PA student, NP student, pharmacist, dietician, emergency medical technician, scribe, or unknown—as identified in their username, title, or in the text of the comment. Gender of the commenter was recorded when provided. Commenters were further grouped by their support or lack of support for the executive order based on their comments. Patients’ comments underwent further qualitative analysis to identify general themes.

All analyses were conducted with RStudio statistical software. Analyses were reported as proportions. Variables were compared by χ² and Fisher exact tests. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 352 comments (130 on Medscape and 222 on Reddit) posted by 155 unique users (57 on Medscape and 98 on Reddit) were included in the analysis (Table 1). Of the 51 Medscape commenters who identified a gender, 60.7% were male and 39.2% were female. Reddit commenters did not identify a gender. Commenters included MD and DO physicians (43.2%), NPs/RNs/certified registered nurse anesthetists (13.5%), medical students (11.0%), PAs (9.7%), pharmacists (3.2%), NP students (1.9%), PA students (1.3%), emergency medical technicians (1.3%), dieticians (0.6%), and scribes (0.6%). Physicians (54.5% vs 36.73%; P=.032) and NPs (22.8% vs 8.2%; P=.009) made up a larger percentage of all comments on Medscape compared to Reddit, where medical students were more prevalent (16.3% vs 1.8%; P=.005). Nursing students and PA students more commonly posted on Reddit (4.08% of Reddit commenters vs 1.75% of Medscape commenters), though this difference did not achieve statistical significance.

A majority of commenters did not support the executive order, with only 20.6% approving of the plan, 54.8% disapproving, and 24.5% remaining neutral (Figure). Advanced practice providers—NPs, PAs, NP/PA students, and APPs not otherwise specified—were more likely to support the executive order, with 52.3% voicing their support compared to only 4.8% of physicians and medical students expressing support (P<.0001). Similarly, physicians and medical students were more likely to disapprove of the order, with 75.0% voicing concerns compared to only 27.3% of APPs dissenting (P<.0001). A similar percentage of both physicians/medical students and APPs remained neutral (20.2% vs 18.2%). Commenters on Medscape were more likely to voice support for the executive order than those on Reddit (36.8% vs 11.2%; P=.0002), likely due to the higher percentage of NP and PA comments on the former.

Comment

President Trump’s executive order follows a trend of decreasing required oversight of APPs; however, this study indicates that these policies would face pushback from many physicians. These results are consistent with a prior study that analyzed 309 comments on an article in The New York Times made by physicians, APPs, patients, and laypeople, in which 24.7% had mistrust of APPs and 14.9% had concerns over APP supervision compared to 9% who supported APP independent practice.⁷ It is clear that there is a serious divide in opinion that threatens to harm the existing collaborations between physicians and APPs.

Primary Care Coverage With APPs
In the comments analyzed in our study, supporters of the executive order argued that an increase in APPs practicing independently would provide much-needed primary care coverage to patients in underserved regions. However, APPs are instead well represented across most specialties, with a majority in dermatology. Of the 4 million procedures billed independently by APPs in 2012, 54.8% were in the field of dermatology.⁸ The employment of APPs by dermatologists has grown from 28% of practices in 2005 to 46% in 2014, making this issue of particular importance to our field.^9,10

Education and Training of APPs
In our analysis, many physicians cited concerns about the education and training of APPs. Dermatologists receive approximately 10,000 hours of training over the course of residency. Per the American Academy of Physician Assistants, PAs spend more than 2000 hours over a 26-month period on various clinical rotations, “with an emphasis on primary care.”¹¹ There are multiple routes to become an advanced practice RN with varying classroom and clinical requirements, with one pathway requiring a bachelor of science in nursing, followed by a master’s degree requiring 500 to 700 hours of supervised clinical work. Although the Dermatology Nurses’ Association and Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants (http://www.dermpa.org) provide online modules, annual conventions with training workshops, and short fellowship programs, neither have formal guidelines on minimum requirements to diagnose and treat dermatologic conditions.² Despite the lack of formalized dermatologic training, APPs billed for 13.4% of all dermatology procedures submitted to Medicare in 2015.¹²

Quality of Patient Care
In our study, physicians also voiced concern over reduced quality of patient care. In a review of 33,647 skin cancer screening examinations, PAs biopsied an average of 39.4 skin lesions, while dermatologists biopsied an average of 25.4 skin lesions to diagnose 1 case of melanoma.¹³ In addition, nonphysician providers accounted for 37.9% of defendants in 174 legal cases related to injury from cutaneous laser surgery.¹⁴ Before further laws are enacted regarding the independent practice and billing by NPs and PAs in the field of dermatology, further research is needed to address patient outcomes and safety.

Limitations
This study was subject to several limitations. Because of a lack of other sources offering discussions on the topic, our sample size was limited. Self-identification of users presents a challenge, as an individual can pose as a physician or APP without validation of credentials. Although great care was taken to minimize bias, grouping comments into broad categories may misinterpret a poster’s intentions. Furthermore, the data collected represent only a small proportion of the medical community—readers of Medscape and Reddit who have the motivation to create a user profile and post a comment rather than put their efforts into lobbying or contacting legislators. Those posting may have stronger political opinions or more poignant experiences than the general public. Although selection bias impacts the generalizability of our findings, this analysis allows for deeper insight into the beliefs of a vocal subset of the medical community who may not have the opportunity to present their opinions elsewhere.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the response to President Trump’s executive order reveals that a rollout of these regulations would be met with strong opposition. On October 29, 2019, more than 100 professional organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, wrote a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that eloquently echoed the sentiments of the physician commenters in this study: “Scope of practice of health care professionals should be based on standardized, adequate training and demonstrated competence in patient care, not politics. While all health care professionals share an important role in providing care to patients, their skillset is not interchangeable with that of a fully trained physician.”¹⁵ The executive order would lead to a major shift in the current medical landscape, and as such, it is prudent that these concerns are addressed.

Practice Gap

Practical patient positioning is a commonly overlooked method of tension control during excision and repair that allows for easier closure.¹ Although positioning is a basic step in dermatologic surgery, it often is difficult and awkward for both the patient and physician. Here, we describe basic principles in patient positioning that increase tension across the surgical site during excision and reduce tension during closure. By reducing the amount of work required for excision and closure, procedures are completed more quickly, which increases efficiency. These techniques should be considered during dermatologic surgery at sites that are subject to both high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities.

Technique: Upper Back Procedures

When removing lesions on the upper back, lying completely prone is uncomfortable for the patient and leaves the shoulders hyperextended.² Instead, position the patient with the arms extended anteriorly, hugging a pillow, while lying prone or on one side (Figure 1). In this position, excision of the lesion is facilitated by increased tension across the upper back. In addition, this position is notably more comfortable for the patient. During closure, the patient should lie on the side contralateral to the surgical site, with the elbow resting at the hip and the ipsilateral arm lying parallel to the torso (Figure 2).

Following procedures on the upper back and shoulders, we typically recommend that the patient wear an arm sling on the ipsilateral side for 1 week. Doing so reliably limits mobility postoperatively and does not require the patient to constantly monitor their movement.

Technique: Lower Extremity Procedures

Anterior Lower Extremity
During excision of a lesion on the anterior lower extremity, we recommend that the patient be positioned with their knee bent and heel resting on the examination table. Ideally, the knee is flexed at approximately a 45° angle (Figure 3).³ In this position, excision of the lesion is facilitated by increased tension across the anterior lower extremity. During closure of these lesions, the patient should lie supine with the knee fully extended and the leg resting on the surgical bed or a pillow.

Posterior Lower Extremity
During excision of lesions on the posterior lower extremity, the patient should be positioned lying prone, with the knee fully extended, resting on the surgical bed or a pillow, which facilitates excision of the lesion by increasing tension across the site. During closure of these lesions, the patient should lie on the side contralateral to the surgical site, with the leg fully extended for support. The surgical leg should be flexed at the knee at approximately a 45° angle (Figure 4).

Practice Implications

Despite being an important step, patient positioning is an often-overlooked component of dermatologic surgery. Positioning becomes even more important in areas of high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities, where the risk of wound dehiscence and poor scar cosmesis is increased.¹ Experienced dermatologic surgeons should utilize patient positioning, taking advantage of tension instead of working against it.

We have found that these 2 simple principles can aid in simplifying the excision and repair processes. Increasing tension across the surgical site during excision reduces the work required by the surgeon to reach the appropriate depth. Conversely, decreased tension across the surgical site decreases the work required for closure. These principles should be considered prior to the procedure; the patient should then be positioned in a way that maximizes tension across the surgical site during excision and minimizes tension across the surgical site during closure.

Incorporating these techniques, especially at sites that are subject to both high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities, not only increases efficiency but may also reduce the risk for wound dehiscence once the patient returns home and maintains their normal level of physical activity.

Practice Gap

Practical patient positioning is a commonly overlooked method of tension control during excision and repair that allows for easier closure.¹ Although positioning is a basic step in dermatologic surgery, it often is difficult and awkward for both the patient and physician. Here, we describe basic principles in patient positioning that increase tension across the surgical site during excision and reduce tension during closure. By reducing the amount of work required for excision and closure, procedures are completed more quickly, which increases efficiency. These techniques should be considered during dermatologic surgery at sites that are subject to both high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities.

Technique: Upper Back Procedures

When removing lesions on the upper back, lying completely prone is uncomfortable for the patient and leaves the shoulders hyperextended.² Instead, position the patient with the arms extended anteriorly, hugging a pillow, while lying prone or on one side (Figure 1). In this position, excision of the lesion is facilitated by increased tension across the upper back. In addition, this position is notably more comfortable for the patient. During closure, the patient should lie on the side contralateral to the surgical site, with the elbow resting at the hip and the ipsilateral arm lying parallel to the torso (Figure 2).

Following procedures on the upper back and shoulders, we typically recommend that the patient wear an arm sling on the ipsilateral side for 1 week. Doing so reliably limits mobility postoperatively and does not require the patient to constantly monitor their movement.

Technique: Lower Extremity Procedures

Anterior Lower Extremity
During excision of a lesion on the anterior lower extremity, we recommend that the patient be positioned with their knee bent and heel resting on the examination table. Ideally, the knee is flexed at approximately a 45° angle (Figure 3).³ In this position, excision of the lesion is facilitated by increased tension across the anterior lower extremity. During closure of these lesions, the patient should lie supine with the knee fully extended and the leg resting on the surgical bed or a pillow.

Posterior Lower Extremity
During excision of lesions on the posterior lower extremity, the patient should be positioned lying prone, with the knee fully extended, resting on the surgical bed or a pillow, which facilitates excision of the lesion by increasing tension across the site. During closure of these lesions, the patient should lie on the side contralateral to the surgical site, with the leg fully extended for support. The surgical leg should be flexed at the knee at approximately a 45° angle (Figure 4).

Practice Implications

Despite being an important step, patient positioning is an often-overlooked component of dermatologic surgery. Positioning becomes even more important in areas of high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities, where the risk of wound dehiscence and poor scar cosmesis is increased.¹ Experienced dermatologic surgeons should utilize patient positioning, taking advantage of tension instead of working against it.

We have found that these 2 simple principles can aid in simplifying the excision and repair processes. Increasing tension across the surgical site during excision reduces the work required by the surgeon to reach the appropriate depth. Conversely, decreased tension across the surgical site decreases the work required for closure. These principles should be considered prior to the procedure; the patient should then be positioned in a way that maximizes tension across the surgical site during excision and minimizes tension across the surgical site during closure.

Incorporating these techniques, especially at sites that are subject to both high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities, not only increases efficiency but may also reduce the risk for wound dehiscence once the patient returns home and maintains their normal level of physical activity.

Practice Gap

Practical patient positioning is a commonly overlooked method of tension control during excision and repair that allows for easier closure.¹ Although positioning is a basic step in dermatologic surgery, it often is difficult and awkward for both the patient and physician. Here, we describe basic principles in patient positioning that increase tension across the surgical site during excision and reduce tension during closure. By reducing the amount of work required for excision and closure, procedures are completed more quickly, which increases efficiency. These techniques should be considered during dermatologic surgery at sites that are subject to both high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities.

Technique: Upper Back Procedures

When removing lesions on the upper back, lying completely prone is uncomfortable for the patient and leaves the shoulders hyperextended.² Instead, position the patient with the arms extended anteriorly, hugging a pillow, while lying prone or on one side (Figure 1). In this position, excision of the lesion is facilitated by increased tension across the upper back. In addition, this position is notably more comfortable for the patient. During closure, the patient should lie on the side contralateral to the surgical site, with the elbow resting at the hip and the ipsilateral arm lying parallel to the torso (Figure 2).

Following procedures on the upper back and shoulders, we typically recommend that the patient wear an arm sling on the ipsilateral side for 1 week. Doing so reliably limits mobility postoperatively and does not require the patient to constantly monitor their movement.

Technique: Lower Extremity Procedures

Anterior Lower Extremity
During excision of a lesion on the anterior lower extremity, we recommend that the patient be positioned with their knee bent and heel resting on the examination table. Ideally, the knee is flexed at approximately a 45° angle (Figure 3).³ In this position, excision of the lesion is facilitated by increased tension across the anterior lower extremity. During closure of these lesions, the patient should lie supine with the knee fully extended and the leg resting on the surgical bed or a pillow.

Posterior Lower Extremity
During excision of lesions on the posterior lower extremity, the patient should be positioned lying prone, with the knee fully extended, resting on the surgical bed or a pillow, which facilitates excision of the lesion by increasing tension across the site. During closure of these lesions, the patient should lie on the side contralateral to the surgical site, with the leg fully extended for support. The surgical leg should be flexed at the knee at approximately a 45° angle (Figure 4).

Practice Implications

Despite being an important step, patient positioning is an often-overlooked component of dermatologic surgery. Positioning becomes even more important in areas of high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities, where the risk of wound dehiscence and poor scar cosmesis is increased.¹ Experienced dermatologic surgeons should utilize patient positioning, taking advantage of tension instead of working against it.

We have found that these 2 simple principles can aid in simplifying the excision and repair processes. Increasing tension across the surgical site during excision reduces the work required by the surgeon to reach the appropriate depth. Conversely, decreased tension across the surgical site decreases the work required for closure. These principles should be considered prior to the procedure; the patient should then be positioned in a way that maximizes tension across the surgical site during excision and minimizes tension across the surgical site during closure.

Incorporating these techniques, especially at sites that are subject to both high tension and repetitive motion, such as the upper back and lower extremities, not only increases efficiency but may also reduce the risk for wound dehiscence once the patient returns home and maintains their normal level of physical activity.

Multifocal microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulbs is another possible adverse outcome from COVID-19, new research suggests.

Postmortem MRI brain scans of 13 patients who died from COVID-19 showed abnormalities in 10 of the participants. Of these, nine showed punctate hyperintensities, “which represented areas of microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage,” the investigators reported. Immunostaining also showed a thinning of the basal lamina in five of these patients.

Further analyses showed punctate hypointensities linked to congested blood vessels in 10 patients. These areas were “interpreted as microhemorrhages,” the researchers noted.

There was no evidence of viral infection, including SARS-CoV-2.

“These findings may inform the interpretation of changes observed on [MRI] of punctate hyperintensities and linear hypointensities in patients with COVID-19,” wrote Myoung-Hwa Lee, PhD, a research fellow at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and colleagues. The findings were published online Dec. 30 in a “correspondence” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Interpret with caution

The investigators examined brains from a convenience sample of 19 patients (mean age, 50 years), all of whom died from COVID-19 between March and July 2020.

An 11.7-tesla scanner was used to obtain magnetic resonance microscopy images for 13 of the patients. In order to scan the olfactory bulb, the scanner was set at a resolution of 25 mcm; for the brain, it was set at 100 mcm.

Chromogenic immunostaining was used to assess brain abnormalities found in 10 of the patients. Multiplex fluorescence imaging was also used for some of the patients.

For 18 study participants, a histopathological brain examination was performed. In the patients who also had medical histories available to the researchers, five had mild respiratory syndrome, four had acute respiratory distress syndrome, two had pulmonary embolism, one had delirium, and three had unknown symptoms.

The punctate hyperintensities found on magnetic resonance microscopy were also found on histopathological exam. Collagen IV immunostaining showed a thinning in the basal lamina of endothelial cells in these areas.

In addition to congested blood vessels, punctate hypointensities were linked to areas of fibrinogen leakage – but also to “relatively intact vasculature,” the investigators reported.

“There was minimal perivascular inflammation in the specimens examined, but there was no vascular occlusion,” they added.

SARS-CoV-2 was also not found in any of the participants. “It is possible that the virus was cleared by the time of death or that viral copy numbers were below the level of detection by our assays,” the researchers noted.

In 13 of the patients, hypertrophic astrocytes, macrophage infiltrates, and perivascular-activated microglia were found. Eight patients showed CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in spaces and lumens next to endothelial cells.

Finally, five patients showed activated microglia next to neurons. This is “suggestive of neuronophagia in the olfactory bulb, substantial nigra, dorsal motor nucleus of the vagal nerve, and the pre-Bötzinger complex in the medulla, which is involved in the generation of spontaneous rhythmic breathing,” wrote the investigators.

In summary, vascular pathology was found in 10 cases, perivascular infiltrates were present in 13 cases, acute ischemic hypoxic neurons were present in 6 cases, and changes suggestive of neuronophagia were present in 5 cases.

The researchers noted that, although the study findings may be helpful when interpreting brain changes on MRI scan in this patient population, availability of clinical information for the participants was limited.

Therefore, “no conclusions can be drawn in relation to neurologic features of COVID-19,” they wrote.

The study was funded by NINDS. Dr. Lee and all but one of the other investigators reported no relevant financial relationships; the remaining investigator reported having received grants from NINDS during the conduct of this study.

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

Multifocal microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulbs is another possible adverse outcome from COVID-19, new research suggests.

Postmortem MRI brain scans of 13 patients who died from COVID-19 showed abnormalities in 10 of the participants. Of these, nine showed punctate hyperintensities, “which represented areas of microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage,” the investigators reported. Immunostaining also showed a thinning of the basal lamina in five of these patients.

Further analyses showed punctate hypointensities linked to congested blood vessels in 10 patients. These areas were “interpreted as microhemorrhages,” the researchers noted.

There was no evidence of viral infection, including SARS-CoV-2.

“These findings may inform the interpretation of changes observed on [MRI] of punctate hyperintensities and linear hypointensities in patients with COVID-19,” wrote Myoung-Hwa Lee, PhD, a research fellow at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and colleagues. The findings were published online Dec. 30 in a “correspondence” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Interpret with caution

The investigators examined brains from a convenience sample of 19 patients (mean age, 50 years), all of whom died from COVID-19 between March and July 2020.

An 11.7-tesla scanner was used to obtain magnetic resonance microscopy images for 13 of the patients. In order to scan the olfactory bulb, the scanner was set at a resolution of 25 mcm; for the brain, it was set at 100 mcm.

Chromogenic immunostaining was used to assess brain abnormalities found in 10 of the patients. Multiplex fluorescence imaging was also used for some of the patients.

For 18 study participants, a histopathological brain examination was performed. In the patients who also had medical histories available to the researchers, five had mild respiratory syndrome, four had acute respiratory distress syndrome, two had pulmonary embolism, one had delirium, and three had unknown symptoms.

The punctate hyperintensities found on magnetic resonance microscopy were also found on histopathological exam. Collagen IV immunostaining showed a thinning in the basal lamina of endothelial cells in these areas.

In addition to congested blood vessels, punctate hypointensities were linked to areas of fibrinogen leakage – but also to “relatively intact vasculature,” the investigators reported.

“There was minimal perivascular inflammation in the specimens examined, but there was no vascular occlusion,” they added.

SARS-CoV-2 was also not found in any of the participants. “It is possible that the virus was cleared by the time of death or that viral copy numbers were below the level of detection by our assays,” the researchers noted.

In 13 of the patients, hypertrophic astrocytes, macrophage infiltrates, and perivascular-activated microglia were found. Eight patients showed CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in spaces and lumens next to endothelial cells.

Finally, five patients showed activated microglia next to neurons. This is “suggestive of neuronophagia in the olfactory bulb, substantial nigra, dorsal motor nucleus of the vagal nerve, and the pre-Bötzinger complex in the medulla, which is involved in the generation of spontaneous rhythmic breathing,” wrote the investigators.

In summary, vascular pathology was found in 10 cases, perivascular infiltrates were present in 13 cases, acute ischemic hypoxic neurons were present in 6 cases, and changes suggestive of neuronophagia were present in 5 cases.

The researchers noted that, although the study findings may be helpful when interpreting brain changes on MRI scan in this patient population, availability of clinical information for the participants was limited.

Therefore, “no conclusions can be drawn in relation to neurologic features of COVID-19,” they wrote.

The study was funded by NINDS. Dr. Lee and all but one of the other investigators reported no relevant financial relationships; the remaining investigator reported having received grants from NINDS during the conduct of this study.

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

Multifocal microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulbs is another possible adverse outcome from COVID-19, new research suggests.

Postmortem MRI brain scans of 13 patients who died from COVID-19 showed abnormalities in 10 of the participants. Of these, nine showed punctate hyperintensities, “which represented areas of microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage,” the investigators reported. Immunostaining also showed a thinning of the basal lamina in five of these patients.

Further analyses showed punctate hypointensities linked to congested blood vessels in 10 patients. These areas were “interpreted as microhemorrhages,” the researchers noted.

There was no evidence of viral infection, including SARS-CoV-2.

“These findings may inform the interpretation of changes observed on [MRI] of punctate hyperintensities and linear hypointensities in patients with COVID-19,” wrote Myoung-Hwa Lee, PhD, a research fellow at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and colleagues. The findings were published online Dec. 30 in a “correspondence” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Interpret with caution

The investigators examined brains from a convenience sample of 19 patients (mean age, 50 years), all of whom died from COVID-19 between March and July 2020.

An 11.7-tesla scanner was used to obtain magnetic resonance microscopy images for 13 of the patients. In order to scan the olfactory bulb, the scanner was set at a resolution of 25 mcm; for the brain, it was set at 100 mcm.

Chromogenic immunostaining was used to assess brain abnormalities found in 10 of the patients. Multiplex fluorescence imaging was also used for some of the patients.

For 18 study participants, a histopathological brain examination was performed. In the patients who also had medical histories available to the researchers, five had mild respiratory syndrome, four had acute respiratory distress syndrome, two had pulmonary embolism, one had delirium, and three had unknown symptoms.

The punctate hyperintensities found on magnetic resonance microscopy were also found on histopathological exam. Collagen IV immunostaining showed a thinning in the basal lamina of endothelial cells in these areas.

In addition to congested blood vessels, punctate hypointensities were linked to areas of fibrinogen leakage – but also to “relatively intact vasculature,” the investigators reported.

“There was minimal perivascular inflammation in the specimens examined, but there was no vascular occlusion,” they added.

SARS-CoV-2 was also not found in any of the participants. “It is possible that the virus was cleared by the time of death or that viral copy numbers were below the level of detection by our assays,” the researchers noted.

In 13 of the patients, hypertrophic astrocytes, macrophage infiltrates, and perivascular-activated microglia were found. Eight patients showed CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in spaces and lumens next to endothelial cells.

Finally, five patients showed activated microglia next to neurons. This is “suggestive of neuronophagia in the olfactory bulb, substantial nigra, dorsal motor nucleus of the vagal nerve, and the pre-Bötzinger complex in the medulla, which is involved in the generation of spontaneous rhythmic breathing,” wrote the investigators.

In summary, vascular pathology was found in 10 cases, perivascular infiltrates were present in 13 cases, acute ischemic hypoxic neurons were present in 6 cases, and changes suggestive of neuronophagia were present in 5 cases.

The researchers noted that, although the study findings may be helpful when interpreting brain changes on MRI scan in this patient population, availability of clinical information for the participants was limited.

Therefore, “no conclusions can be drawn in relation to neurologic features of COVID-19,” they wrote.

The study was funded by NINDS. Dr. Lee and all but one of the other investigators reported no relevant financial relationships; the remaining investigator reported having received grants from NINDS during the conduct of this study.

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

To the Editor:

There is an irrefutable trend toward urban dermatology practice in the United States, leading to growing problems with rural access to care. The provision of rural clinical experiences and telehealth in dermatology residency training might increase the likelihood of trainees establishing a rural practice.

In 2017, the American Academy of Dermatology released an updated statement supporting direct patient access to board-certified dermatologists in an effort to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with skin disease.¹ Twenty percent of the US population lives in a rural and medically underserved location, yet these areas remain largely underserved, in part because of an irrefutable trend toward urban dermatology practice.^2-4 Successful approaches to improving rural access to dermatology care are poorly defined in the literature.

Several variables have been shown to influence a young physician’s decision to establish a clinical practice in geographically isolated areas, including rural upbringing, longitudinal rural clinical experiences during medical training, and family influences.⁵ Location of residency training is an additional variable that impacts practice location, though migration following dermatology residency is a complex phenomenon. However, training location does not guarantee retention of dermatology graduates in any particular geographic area.⁶ Practice incentives and stipends might encourage rural dermatology practice, yet these programs are underfunded. Last, telemedicine in dermatology (including teledermatology and teledermoscopy), though not always an ideal substitute for a live visit, can improve access to care in geographically isolated or underserved areas in general.^7-9

Focused recruitment of medical students interested in rural dermatology practice to accredited dermatology residency programs aligned with this goal represents another approach to improve geographic diversity in the field of dermatology. Online access to this information would be useful for both applicants and their mentors.

We assessed viewable online curricula related to rural dermatology and telemedicine experiences at all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited residency programs. Telemedicine experiences at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health systems also were assessed.

Methods

This study was exempt from review by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minnesota)(IRB #STUDY00004915) because no human subjects were involved. Online curricula of all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs in the United States and Puerto Rico were reviewed from November to December 2018. The following information was recorded: specialized “rural-track” training; optional elective time in rural settings; teledermatology training; and teledermoscopy training.

Additionally, population density at each program’s primary location was determined using US Census Bureau data and with consideration to communities contained within particular Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)(eTable). Data were obtained from the VHA system to assess teledermatology services at VHA locations affiliated with residency programs.

Results

Of 154 dermatology residency programs identified in the United States and Puerto Rico, 142 were accredited at the time of data collection. Fifteen (10%) were based in communities of 50,000 individuals or fewer that were not near a large metropolitan area. One program (<1%) offered a specific rural track. Fifty-six programs (39%) cited optional rotations or clinical electives, or both, that could be utilized for a rural experience. Eighteen (12%) offered teledermatology experiences and 1 (<1%) offered teledermoscopy during training. Fifty-three programs (37%) offered a rotation at a VHA hospital that had an active teledermatology service.

Comment

Program websites are a free and easily accessible means of acquiring relevant information. The paucity of readily available data on rural dermatology and teledermatology opportunities is unfortunate and a detriment to dermatology residency applicants interested in rural practice, which may result in a missed opportunity to foster a true passion for rural medicine. A brief comment on a website can be impactful, leading to a postgraduate year 4 dermatology elective rotation at a prospective fellowship training site or a rural dermatology experience.

The paucity of dermatologists working directly in rural areas has led to development of teledermatology initiatives to reach deeply into underserved regions. One of the largest providers of teledermatology is the VHA, which standardized its teledermatology efforts in 2012 and provides remarkable educational opportunities for dermatology residents. However, many residency program and VHA websites provide no information about the participation of dermatology residents in the provision of teledermatology services.

A limitation of this study is that it is based on online published curricula. Dermatology residency programs with excellent rural curricula that are not published online might exist.

Residency program directors with an interest in geographic diversity are encouraged to provide rural and teledermatology opportunities and to update these offerings on their websites, which is a simple modifiable strategy that can impact the rural dermatology care gap by recruiting students interested in filling this role. These efforts should be studied to determine whether this strategy impacts resident selection as well as whether focused rural and telemedicine exposure during training increases the likelihood of establishing a rural dermatology practice in the future.

To the Editor:

There is an irrefutable trend toward urban dermatology practice in the United States, leading to growing problems with rural access to care. The provision of rural clinical experiences and telehealth in dermatology residency training might increase the likelihood of trainees establishing a rural practice.

In 2017, the American Academy of Dermatology released an updated statement supporting direct patient access to board-certified dermatologists in an effort to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with skin disease.¹ Twenty percent of the US population lives in a rural and medically underserved location, yet these areas remain largely underserved, in part because of an irrefutable trend toward urban dermatology practice.^2-4 Successful approaches to improving rural access to dermatology care are poorly defined in the literature.

Several variables have been shown to influence a young physician’s decision to establish a clinical practice in geographically isolated areas, including rural upbringing, longitudinal rural clinical experiences during medical training, and family influences.⁵ Location of residency training is an additional variable that impacts practice location, though migration following dermatology residency is a complex phenomenon. However, training location does not guarantee retention of dermatology graduates in any particular geographic area.⁶ Practice incentives and stipends might encourage rural dermatology practice, yet these programs are underfunded. Last, telemedicine in dermatology (including teledermatology and teledermoscopy), though not always an ideal substitute for a live visit, can improve access to care in geographically isolated or underserved areas in general.^7-9

Focused recruitment of medical students interested in rural dermatology practice to accredited dermatology residency programs aligned with this goal represents another approach to improve geographic diversity in the field of dermatology. Online access to this information would be useful for both applicants and their mentors.

We assessed viewable online curricula related to rural dermatology and telemedicine experiences at all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited residency programs. Telemedicine experiences at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health systems also were assessed.

Methods

This study was exempt from review by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minnesota)(IRB #STUDY00004915) because no human subjects were involved. Online curricula of all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs in the United States and Puerto Rico were reviewed from November to December 2018. The following information was recorded: specialized “rural-track” training; optional elective time in rural settings; teledermatology training; and teledermoscopy training.

Additionally, population density at each program’s primary location was determined using US Census Bureau data and with consideration to communities contained within particular Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)(eTable). Data were obtained from the VHA system to assess teledermatology services at VHA locations affiliated with residency programs.

Results

Of 154 dermatology residency programs identified in the United States and Puerto Rico, 142 were accredited at the time of data collection. Fifteen (10%) were based in communities of 50,000 individuals or fewer that were not near a large metropolitan area. One program (<1%) offered a specific rural track. Fifty-six programs (39%) cited optional rotations or clinical electives, or both, that could be utilized for a rural experience. Eighteen (12%) offered teledermatology experiences and 1 (<1%) offered teledermoscopy during training. Fifty-three programs (37%) offered a rotation at a VHA hospital that had an active teledermatology service.

Comment

Program websites are a free and easily accessible means of acquiring relevant information. The paucity of readily available data on rural dermatology and teledermatology opportunities is unfortunate and a detriment to dermatology residency applicants interested in rural practice, which may result in a missed opportunity to foster a true passion for rural medicine. A brief comment on a website can be impactful, leading to a postgraduate year 4 dermatology elective rotation at a prospective fellowship training site or a rural dermatology experience.

The paucity of dermatologists working directly in rural areas has led to development of teledermatology initiatives to reach deeply into underserved regions. One of the largest providers of teledermatology is the VHA, which standardized its teledermatology efforts in 2012 and provides remarkable educational opportunities for dermatology residents. However, many residency program and VHA websites provide no information about the participation of dermatology residents in the provision of teledermatology services.

A limitation of this study is that it is based on online published curricula. Dermatology residency programs with excellent rural curricula that are not published online might exist.

Residency program directors with an interest in geographic diversity are encouraged to provide rural and teledermatology opportunities and to update these offerings on their websites, which is a simple modifiable strategy that can impact the rural dermatology care gap by recruiting students interested in filling this role. These efforts should be studied to determine whether this strategy impacts resident selection as well as whether focused rural and telemedicine exposure during training increases the likelihood of establishing a rural dermatology practice in the future.

To the Editor:

There is an irrefutable trend toward urban dermatology practice in the United States, leading to growing problems with rural access to care. The provision of rural clinical experiences and telehealth in dermatology residency training might increase the likelihood of trainees establishing a rural practice.

In 2017, the American Academy of Dermatology released an updated statement supporting direct patient access to board-certified dermatologists in an effort to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with skin disease.¹ Twenty percent of the US population lives in a rural and medically underserved location, yet these areas remain largely underserved, in part because of an irrefutable trend toward urban dermatology practice.^2-4 Successful approaches to improving rural access to dermatology care are poorly defined in the literature.

Several variables have been shown to influence a young physician’s decision to establish a clinical practice in geographically isolated areas, including rural upbringing, longitudinal rural clinical experiences during medical training, and family influences.⁵ Location of residency training is an additional variable that impacts practice location, though migration following dermatology residency is a complex phenomenon. However, training location does not guarantee retention of dermatology graduates in any particular geographic area.⁶ Practice incentives and stipends might encourage rural dermatology practice, yet these programs are underfunded. Last, telemedicine in dermatology (including teledermatology and teledermoscopy), though not always an ideal substitute for a live visit, can improve access to care in geographically isolated or underserved areas in general.^7-9

Focused recruitment of medical students interested in rural dermatology practice to accredited dermatology residency programs aligned with this goal represents another approach to improve geographic diversity in the field of dermatology. Online access to this information would be useful for both applicants and their mentors.

We assessed viewable online curricula related to rural dermatology and telemedicine experiences at all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited residency programs. Telemedicine experiences at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health systems also were assessed.

Methods

This study was exempt from review by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minnesota)(IRB #STUDY00004915) because no human subjects were involved. Online curricula of all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs in the United States and Puerto Rico were reviewed from November to December 2018. The following information was recorded: specialized “rural-track” training; optional elective time in rural settings; teledermatology training; and teledermoscopy training.

Additionally, population density at each program’s primary location was determined using US Census Bureau data and with consideration to communities contained within particular Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)(eTable). Data were obtained from the VHA system to assess teledermatology services at VHA locations affiliated with residency programs.

Results

Of 154 dermatology residency programs identified in the United States and Puerto Rico, 142 were accredited at the time of data collection. Fifteen (10%) were based in communities of 50,000 individuals or fewer that were not near a large metropolitan area. One program (<1%) offered a specific rural track. Fifty-six programs (39%) cited optional rotations or clinical electives, or both, that could be utilized for a rural experience. Eighteen (12%) offered teledermatology experiences and 1 (<1%) offered teledermoscopy during training. Fifty-three programs (37%) offered a rotation at a VHA hospital that had an active teledermatology service.

Comment

Program websites are a free and easily accessible means of acquiring relevant information. The paucity of readily available data on rural dermatology and teledermatology opportunities is unfortunate and a detriment to dermatology residency applicants interested in rural practice, which may result in a missed opportunity to foster a true passion for rural medicine. A brief comment on a website can be impactful, leading to a postgraduate year 4 dermatology elective rotation at a prospective fellowship training site or a rural dermatology experience.

The paucity of dermatologists working directly in rural areas has led to development of teledermatology initiatives to reach deeply into underserved regions. One of the largest providers of teledermatology is the VHA, which standardized its teledermatology efforts in 2012 and provides remarkable educational opportunities for dermatology residents. However, many residency program and VHA websites provide no information about the participation of dermatology residents in the provision of teledermatology services.

A limitation of this study is that it is based on online published curricula. Dermatology residency programs with excellent rural curricula that are not published online might exist.

Residency program directors with an interest in geographic diversity are encouraged to provide rural and teledermatology opportunities and to update these offerings on their websites, which is a simple modifiable strategy that can impact the rural dermatology care gap by recruiting students interested in filling this role. These efforts should be studied to determine whether this strategy impacts resident selection as well as whether focused rural and telemedicine exposure during training increases the likelihood of establishing a rural dermatology practice in the future.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic, leading to an abrupt widespread shift to teledermatology, with postponement of nonessential in-office medical and surgical services, according to American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommendations.¹ Perspectives have been offered regarding skin cancer management during the pandemic²; however, the current literature is lacking guidance on skin cancer screening and prevention during the COVID-19 era.

Preliminary data show a 34.3% reduction in skin cancer referrals from February to April 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The authors also presented a subsequent reduction in the number of skin cancer diagnoses in March 2020 compared to March 2019.³ Although the COVID-19 public health emergency should be prioritized by all health care workers, the duty to maintain disease prevention remains.

We aim to provide recommendations for this urgent topic. Our goal is finding balance in preventing an increase in the incidence of and mortality from skin cancer that results from delayed detection, while conserving personalprotective equipment and minimizing exposure, by patients and clinical personnel, to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. A primary benefit of skin cancer screening lies in the ability to detect melanoma, which is associated with higher mortality than the more common nonmelanoma skin cancers, basal and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas. We place preeminence on screening directed toward detecting melanoma. The main screening method that dermatologists employ is the total-body skin examination (TBSE). Another widely encouraged and utilized component in skin cancer prevention is patient education, emphasizing avoidance of risk factors, undertaking protective factors, and providing clear instructions for performing the patient-led skin self-examination (SSE).

Teledermatology Essentials for Skin Cancer Screening

Arguably, dermatology possesses the most potential for successfully utilizing telemedicine. Teledermatology has become widely implemented across the United States, secondary to the implications of the current pandemic. A report by Perkins and colleagues⁴ provided a positive outlook in the preliminary transition to teledermatology beginning in March 2020, though reported time of use was relatively short (3 weeks). A May 2020 article in Dermatology News provided tips for implementing telemedicine for practices.⁵

We agree with the comprehensive screening algorithm for teledermatology presented by Perkins and colleagues⁴ (Figure 1A in their report) and recommend the following for the screening and prevention of skin cancer:

• Patients with any characteristics of increased risk, including a personal or family history of melanoma, large congenital nevi, many melanotic nevi, dysplastic nevi, and Fitzpatrick skin types I and II,⁶ should be prioritized for an in-person visit for TBSE.

• Immunosuppressed patients, particularly organ transplant recipients and those with a history of skin cancer, should be prioritized for an in-person visit for TBSE.

• Established patients evaluated and determined to be at average risk for skin cancer should be offered a teledermatology visit. Suspicious findings during these visits should be prioritized for an in-person visit, with subsequent biopsy and follow-up.

• New patients should be offered a teledermatology visit.

These recommendations must be reviewed alongside each patient’s risk for travel and being present in person as well as other factors that might place the patient at increased risk for COVID-19.

Total-body skin examination, a widely used tool in the dermatologist’s tool kit, presents minimal risk to patients while providing important data for each dermatology patient’s profile, ultimately directing patient care. The role of TBSE in skin cancer screening and prevention has been in discussion even prior to the current pandemic. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has not declared a role for TBSE in recent years; however, USPSTF recommendations are formulated using data from all forms of screening, not only dermatologist-led interventions. Accordingly, USPSTF recommendations target primary care. The AAD has released statements addressing the role of TBSE and skin cancer prevention in the past, when necessary, to provide clarity.⁷

There is no clear definition of SSE or guidelines on how to educate a patient to perform regular SSE; however, the AAD provides patients with resources on how to perform an SSE.⁸ Just as dermatologists would provide education, advice, and guidance by directing patients to the AAD website for the SSE during an in-person visit, we encourage dermatologists to continue this practice during all teledermatology visits.

The role of teledermatology in skin cancer screening and prevention is limited; dermatologists will not be able to adequately perform TBSE as it would be done at in-person visits. Furthermore, the true implications of teledermatology compared to in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic have yet to be realized and analyzed. It is nonetheless important to appreciate that teledermatology holds great promise of benefit in skin cancer prevention, especially in the form of patient education by dermatologists. Practices in the realm of screening and prevention by health care professionals should be continually addressed during the pandemic; it is important to consider the implications associated with delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Teledermatology Limitations and Recommendations for High-Quality Visits

A benefit of video consultation (VC) vs telephone visits is visual interaction—the crux of dermatology. A 2019 study investigated VC experiences among providers and patients in the primary care setting. Benefits of VC were reported to include convenience for working patients and patients with mobility or mental health problems, visual cues, building rapport, and improving communication.⁹

Despite these benefits, VC is not without limitations. Many technical factors create variability in the quality of teledermatology VCs for a melanocytic lesion, including patient environment and lighting, color distortion, video resolution, and Internet connection. We make the following recommendations:

• Environment: Locate or create a dedicated space for teledermatology visits that is well lit, private, and has minimal background noise. Place the device on a level surface, center yourself in the frame, and keep the camera at eye level.

• Lighting: Use neutral lighting, placing the light source in front of you but behind the camera of the device. Avoid placing light sources, such as a window, behind you.

• Video resolution: Regardless of the type of camera (eg, integrated webcam, external camera), close out all other running software programs to optimize bandwidth during the visit.

• Internet connection: Use a wired connection (via an Ethernet cable) instead of a Wi-Fi connection to greatly decrease the chance of losing the connection during the visit. It also is faster than Wi-Fi.

• Addressing specific lesions: Patients should keep the device in place, repositioning themselves to show the lesions rather than moving the device by hand.

• Video capacity: Test your device’s video capacity beforehand, which can be as simple as video-calling a family member or friend from your designated space. Feedback regarding video and audio quality will help fine-tune your setup.

• Instructions to the patient: Provide clear instructions to the patient when photographs of specific lesions are needed for further review. Specify what view(s) you need and whether size or bilateral comparison is needed. A web post by VisualDx¹⁰ provides advice to patients on taking high-quality photographs.

Final Thoughts

Teledermatology indubitably presents a learning curve for dermatologists and patients. As with other technological advances in society, we are optimistic that, first, the confidence level in teledermatology use will increase, and, second, evidence-based data will pave the way to enhance this experience. We realize the inherent limitation of accessibility to certain technologies, which is regrettably far from equitable. Patients need a personal device equipped with audio and video; access to a high-quality Internet connection; some degree of technological literacy; and a quiet private location.

We hope to learn from all experiences during the current pandemic. Future innovation in teledermatology and in telemedicine generally should aim to address technological inequities to allow for the delivery of quality care to as many patients as possible.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic, leading to an abrupt widespread shift to teledermatology, with postponement of nonessential in-office medical and surgical services, according to American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommendations.¹ Perspectives have been offered regarding skin cancer management during the pandemic²; however, the current literature is lacking guidance on skin cancer screening and prevention during the COVID-19 era.

Preliminary data show a 34.3% reduction in skin cancer referrals from February to April 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The authors also presented a subsequent reduction in the number of skin cancer diagnoses in March 2020 compared to March 2019.³ Although the COVID-19 public health emergency should be prioritized by all health care workers, the duty to maintain disease prevention remains.

We aim to provide recommendations for this urgent topic. Our goal is finding balance in preventing an increase in the incidence of and mortality from skin cancer that results from delayed detection, while conserving personalprotective equipment and minimizing exposure, by patients and clinical personnel, to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. A primary benefit of skin cancer screening lies in the ability to detect melanoma, which is associated with higher mortality than the more common nonmelanoma skin cancers, basal and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas. We place preeminence on screening directed toward detecting melanoma. The main screening method that dermatologists employ is the total-body skin examination (TBSE). Another widely encouraged and utilized component in skin cancer prevention is patient education, emphasizing avoidance of risk factors, undertaking protective factors, and providing clear instructions for performing the patient-led skin self-examination (SSE).

Teledermatology Essentials for Skin Cancer Screening

Arguably, dermatology possesses the most potential for successfully utilizing telemedicine. Teledermatology has become widely implemented across the United States, secondary to the implications of the current pandemic. A report by Perkins and colleagues⁴ provided a positive outlook in the preliminary transition to teledermatology beginning in March 2020, though reported time of use was relatively short (3 weeks). A May 2020 article in Dermatology News provided tips for implementing telemedicine for practices.⁵

We agree with the comprehensive screening algorithm for teledermatology presented by Perkins and colleagues⁴ (Figure 1A in their report) and recommend the following for the screening and prevention of skin cancer:

• Patients with any characteristics of increased risk, including a personal or family history of melanoma, large congenital nevi, many melanotic nevi, dysplastic nevi, and Fitzpatrick skin types I and II,⁶ should be prioritized for an in-person visit for TBSE.

• Immunosuppressed patients, particularly organ transplant recipients and those with a history of skin cancer, should be prioritized for an in-person visit for TBSE.

• Established patients evaluated and determined to be at average risk for skin cancer should be offered a teledermatology visit. Suspicious findings during these visits should be prioritized for an in-person visit, with subsequent biopsy and follow-up.

• New patients should be offered a teledermatology visit.

These recommendations must be reviewed alongside each patient’s risk for travel and being present in person as well as other factors that might place the patient at increased risk for COVID-19.

Total-body skin examination, a widely used tool in the dermatologist’s tool kit, presents minimal risk to patients while providing important data for each dermatology patient’s profile, ultimately directing patient care. The role of TBSE in skin cancer screening and prevention has been in discussion even prior to the current pandemic. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has not declared a role for TBSE in recent years; however, USPSTF recommendations are formulated using data from all forms of screening, not only dermatologist-led interventions. Accordingly, USPSTF recommendations target primary care. The AAD has released statements addressing the role of TBSE and skin cancer prevention in the past, when necessary, to provide clarity.⁷

There is no clear definition of SSE or guidelines on how to educate a patient to perform regular SSE; however, the AAD provides patients with resources on how to perform an SSE.⁸ Just as dermatologists would provide education, advice, and guidance by directing patients to the AAD website for the SSE during an in-person visit, we encourage dermatologists to continue this practice during all teledermatology visits.

The role of teledermatology in skin cancer screening and prevention is limited; dermatologists will not be able to adequately perform TBSE as it would be done at in-person visits. Furthermore, the true implications of teledermatology compared to in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic have yet to be realized and analyzed. It is nonetheless important to appreciate that teledermatology holds great promise of benefit in skin cancer prevention, especially in the form of patient education by dermatologists. Practices in the realm of screening and prevention by health care professionals should be continually addressed during the pandemic; it is important to consider the implications associated with delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Teledermatology Limitations and Recommendations for High-Quality Visits

A benefit of video consultation (VC) vs telephone visits is visual interaction—the crux of dermatology. A 2019 study investigated VC experiences among providers and patients in the primary care setting. Benefits of VC were reported to include convenience for working patients and patients with mobility or mental health problems, visual cues, building rapport, and improving communication.⁹

Despite these benefits, VC is not without limitations. Many technical factors create variability in the quality of teledermatology VCs for a melanocytic lesion, including patient environment and lighting, color distortion, video resolution, and Internet connection. We make the following recommendations:

• Environment: Locate or create a dedicated space for teledermatology visits that is well lit, private, and has minimal background noise. Place the device on a level surface, center yourself in the frame, and keep the camera at eye level.

• Lighting: Use neutral lighting, placing the light source in front of you but behind the camera of the device. Avoid placing light sources, such as a window, behind you.

• Video resolution: Regardless of the type of camera (eg, integrated webcam, external camera), close out all other running software programs to optimize bandwidth during the visit.

• Internet connection: Use a wired connection (via an Ethernet cable) instead of a Wi-Fi connection to greatly decrease the chance of losing the connection during the visit. It also is faster than Wi-Fi.

• Addressing specific lesions: Patients should keep the device in place, repositioning themselves to show the lesions rather than moving the device by hand.

• Video capacity: Test your device’s video capacity beforehand, which can be as simple as video-calling a family member or friend from your designated space. Feedback regarding video and audio quality will help fine-tune your setup.

• Instructions to the patient: Provide clear instructions to the patient when photographs of specific lesions are needed for further review. Specify what view(s) you need and whether size or bilateral comparison is needed. A web post by VisualDx¹⁰ provides advice to patients on taking high-quality photographs.

Final Thoughts

Teledermatology indubitably presents a learning curve for dermatologists and patients. As with other technological advances in society, we are optimistic that, first, the confidence level in teledermatology use will increase, and, second, evidence-based data will pave the way to enhance this experience. We realize the inherent limitation of accessibility to certain technologies, which is regrettably far from equitable. Patients need a personal device equipped with audio and video; access to a high-quality Internet connection; some degree of technological literacy; and a quiet private location.

We hope to learn from all experiences during the current pandemic. Future innovation in teledermatology and in telemedicine generally should aim to address technological inequities to allow for the delivery of quality care to as many patients as possible.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic, leading to an abrupt widespread shift to teledermatology, with postponement of nonessential in-office medical and surgical services, according to American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommendations.¹ Perspectives have been offered regarding skin cancer management during the pandemic²; however, the current literature is lacking guidance on skin cancer screening and prevention during the COVID-19 era.

Preliminary data show a 34.3% reduction in skin cancer referrals from February to April 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The authors also presented a subsequent reduction in the number of skin cancer diagnoses in March 2020 compared to March 2019.³ Although the COVID-19 public health emergency should be prioritized by all health care workers, the duty to maintain disease prevention remains.

We aim to provide recommendations for this urgent topic. Our goal is finding balance in preventing an increase in the incidence of and mortality from skin cancer that results from delayed detection, while conserving personalprotective equipment and minimizing exposure, by patients and clinical personnel, to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. A primary benefit of skin cancer screening lies in the ability to detect melanoma, which is associated with higher mortality than the more common nonmelanoma skin cancers, basal and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas. We place preeminence on screening directed toward detecting melanoma. The main screening method that dermatologists employ is the total-body skin examination (TBSE). Another widely encouraged and utilized component in skin cancer prevention is patient education, emphasizing avoidance of risk factors, undertaking protective factors, and providing clear instructions for performing the patient-led skin self-examination (SSE).

Teledermatology Essentials for Skin Cancer Screening

Arguably, dermatology possesses the most potential for successfully utilizing telemedicine. Teledermatology has become widely implemented across the United States, secondary to the implications of the current pandemic. A report by Perkins and colleagues⁴ provided a positive outlook in the preliminary transition to teledermatology beginning in March 2020, though reported time of use was relatively short (3 weeks). A May 2020 article in Dermatology News provided tips for implementing telemedicine for practices.⁵

We agree with the comprehensive screening algorithm for teledermatology presented by Perkins and colleagues⁴ (Figure 1A in their report) and recommend the following for the screening and prevention of skin cancer:

• Patients with any characteristics of increased risk, including a personal or family history of melanoma, large congenital nevi, many melanotic nevi, dysplastic nevi, and Fitzpatrick skin types I and II,⁶ should be prioritized for an in-person visit for TBSE.

• Immunosuppressed patients, particularly organ transplant recipients and those with a history of skin cancer, should be prioritized for an in-person visit for TBSE.

• Established patients evaluated and determined to be at average risk for skin cancer should be offered a teledermatology visit. Suspicious findings during these visits should be prioritized for an in-person visit, with subsequent biopsy and follow-up.

• New patients should be offered a teledermatology visit.

These recommendations must be reviewed alongside each patient’s risk for travel and being present in person as well as other factors that might place the patient at increased risk for COVID-19.

Total-body skin examination, a widely used tool in the dermatologist’s tool kit, presents minimal risk to patients while providing important data for each dermatology patient’s profile, ultimately directing patient care. The role of TBSE in skin cancer screening and prevention has been in discussion even prior to the current pandemic. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has not declared a role for TBSE in recent years; however, USPSTF recommendations are formulated using data from all forms of screening, not only dermatologist-led interventions. Accordingly, USPSTF recommendations target primary care. The AAD has released statements addressing the role of TBSE and skin cancer prevention in the past, when necessary, to provide clarity.⁷

There is no clear definition of SSE or guidelines on how to educate a patient to perform regular SSE; however, the AAD provides patients with resources on how to perform an SSE.⁸ Just as dermatologists would provide education, advice, and guidance by directing patients to the AAD website for the SSE during an in-person visit, we encourage dermatologists to continue this practice during all teledermatology visits.

The role of teledermatology in skin cancer screening and prevention is limited; dermatologists will not be able to adequately perform TBSE as it would be done at in-person visits. Furthermore, the true implications of teledermatology compared to in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic have yet to be realized and analyzed. It is nonetheless important to appreciate that teledermatology holds great promise of benefit in skin cancer prevention, especially in the form of patient education by dermatologists. Practices in the realm of screening and prevention by health care professionals should be continually addressed during the pandemic; it is important to consider the implications associated with delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Teledermatology Limitations and Recommendations for High-Quality Visits

A benefit of video consultation (VC) vs telephone visits is visual interaction—the crux of dermatology. A 2019 study investigated VC experiences among providers and patients in the primary care setting. Benefits of VC were reported to include convenience for working patients and patients with mobility or mental health problems, visual cues, building rapport, and improving communication.⁹

Despite these benefits, VC is not without limitations. Many technical factors create variability in the quality of teledermatology VCs for a melanocytic lesion, including patient environment and lighting, color distortion, video resolution, and Internet connection. We make the following recommendations:

• Environment: Locate or create a dedicated space for teledermatology visits that is well lit, private, and has minimal background noise. Place the device on a level surface, center yourself in the frame, and keep the camera at eye level.

• Lighting: Use neutral lighting, placing the light source in front of you but behind the camera of the device. Avoid placing light sources, such as a window, behind you.

• Video resolution: Regardless of the type of camera (eg, integrated webcam, external camera), close out all other running software programs to optimize bandwidth during the visit.

• Internet connection: Use a wired connection (via an Ethernet cable) instead of a Wi-Fi connection to greatly decrease the chance of losing the connection during the visit. It also is faster than Wi-Fi.

• Addressing specific lesions: Patients should keep the device in place, repositioning themselves to show the lesions rather than moving the device by hand.

• Video capacity: Test your device’s video capacity beforehand, which can be as simple as video-calling a family member or friend from your designated space. Feedback regarding video and audio quality will help fine-tune your setup.

• Instructions to the patient: Provide clear instructions to the patient when photographs of specific lesions are needed for further review. Specify what view(s) you need and whether size or bilateral comparison is needed. A web post by VisualDx¹⁰ provides advice to patients on taking high-quality photographs.

Final Thoughts

Teledermatology indubitably presents a learning curve for dermatologists and patients. As with other technological advances in society, we are optimistic that, first, the confidence level in teledermatology use will increase, and, second, evidence-based data will pave the way to enhance this experience. We realize the inherent limitation of accessibility to certain technologies, which is regrettably far from equitable. Patients need a personal device equipped with audio and video; access to a high-quality Internet connection; some degree of technological literacy; and a quiet private location.

We hope to learn from all experiences during the current pandemic. Future innovation in teledermatology and in telemedicine generally should aim to address technological inequities to allow for the delivery of quality care to as many patients as possible.

Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.

Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.

A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.

Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.

In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).

In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.

“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.

However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.

“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
 

Comparisons inform choices

“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.

“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.

Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.

The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.

The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.  

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.

SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323

Story updated Jan. 6, 2021.

Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.

Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.

A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.

Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.

In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).

In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.

“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.

However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.

“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
 

Comparisons inform choices

“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.

“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.

Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.

The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.

The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.  

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.

SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323

Story updated Jan. 6, 2021.

Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.

Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.

A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.

Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.

In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).

In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.

“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.

However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.

“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
 

Comparisons inform choices

“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.

“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.

Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.

The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.

The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.  

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.

SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323

Story updated Jan. 6, 2021.

Sponges are among the oldest animals on earth, appearing more than 640 million years ago before the Cambrian explosion, a period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil records.¹ More than 10,000 species of sponges have been identified worldwide and are distributed from polar to tropical regions in both marine (Figure 1) and freshwater (Figure 2) environments. They inhabit both shallow waters as well as depths of more than 2800 m, with shallower sponges tending to be more vibrantly colored than their deeper counterparts. The wide-ranging habitats of sponges have led to size variations from as small as 0.05 mm to more than 3 m in height.² Their taxonomic phylum, Porifera (meaning pore bearers), is derived from the millions of pores lining the surface of the sponge that are used to filter planktonic organisms.³ Flagellated epithelioid cells called choanocytes line the internal chambers of sponges, creating a water current that promotes filter feeding as well as nutrient absorption across their microvilli.⁴ The body walls of many sponges consist of a collagenous skeleton made up of spongin and spicules of silicon dioxide (silica) or calcium carbonate embedded in the spongin connective tissue matrix.⁵ Bath sponges lack silica spicules.

Sponges have been used in medicine for centuries. The first use in Western culture was recorded in 405 bce in The Frogs, a comedy by Aristophanes in which a sponge was placed on a character’s heart following a syncopal episode. Additionally, in many Hippocratic writings, the use of sponges is outlined in the treatment of a variety of ailments. Similarly, the ancient Chinese and Greeks used burnt sponge and seaweed as a source of iodine to treat goiters.^6,7 Modern research focuses on the use of sponge metabolites for their antineoplastic, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory effects.⁸ Identification of spongouridine and spongothymidine from the sponge Tectitethya crypta led to the development of cytarabine and gemcitabine⁸ as well as the discovery of the antiviral agent vidarabine.⁹ The monoclonal antibody assay for the detection of shellfish poisoning was prepared using the sponge Halichondria okadai.¹⁰

Mechanisms and Symptoms of Injury

Bathing sponges (silk sponges) derived from Spongia officinalis are harmless. Other sponges can exert their damaging effects through a variety of mechanisms that lead to dermatologic manifestations (eTable). Some species of sponges produce and secrete toxic metabolites (eg, crinotoxins) onto the body surface or into the surrounding water. They also are capable of synthesizing a mucous slime that can be irritating to human skin. Direct trauma also can be caused by fragments of the silica or calcium carbonate sponge skeleton penetrating the skin. Stinging members of the phylum Cnidaria can colonize the sponge, leading to injury when a human handles the sponge.^25-27

Sponge dermatitis can be divided into 2 major categories: an initial pruritic dermatitis (Figure 3) that occurs within 20 minutes to a few hours after contact and a delayed irritant dermatitis caused by penetration of the spicules and chemical agents into skin.²⁸ Importantly, different species can lead to varying manifestations.

Management

Treatment should consist of an initial decontamination; the skin should be dried, and adhesive tape or rubber cement should be utilized to remove any spicules embedded in the skin. Diluted vinegar soaks should be initiated for 10 to 30 minutes on the affected area(s) 3 or 4 times daily.¹⁹ The initial decontamination should occur immediately, as delay may lead to persistent purulent bullae that may take months to heal. Topical steroids may be used following the initial decontamination to help relieve inflammation. Antihistamines and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be used to alleviate pruritus and pain, respectively. Severe cases may require systemic glucocorticoids. Additionally, immunization status against tetanus toxoid should be assessed.³⁵ In the event of an anaphylactic reaction, it is important to maintain a patent airway and normalized blood pressure through the use of intramuscular epinephrine.³⁶ Frequent follow-up is warranted, as serious secondary infections can develop.³⁷ Patients also should be counseled on the potential for delayed dermatologic reactions, including erythema multiforme. Contact between humans and coastal environments has been increasing in the last few decades; therefore, an increase in contact with sponges is to be expected.²²

Sponges are among the oldest animals on earth, appearing more than 640 million years ago before the Cambrian explosion, a period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil records.¹ More than 10,000 species of sponges have been identified worldwide and are distributed from polar to tropical regions in both marine (Figure 1) and freshwater (Figure 2) environments. They inhabit both shallow waters as well as depths of more than 2800 m, with shallower sponges tending to be more vibrantly colored than their deeper counterparts. The wide-ranging habitats of sponges have led to size variations from as small as 0.05 mm to more than 3 m in height.² Their taxonomic phylum, Porifera (meaning pore bearers), is derived from the millions of pores lining the surface of the sponge that are used to filter planktonic organisms.³ Flagellated epithelioid cells called choanocytes line the internal chambers of sponges, creating a water current that promotes filter feeding as well as nutrient absorption across their microvilli.⁴ The body walls of many sponges consist of a collagenous skeleton made up of spongin and spicules of silicon dioxide (silica) or calcium carbonate embedded in the spongin connective tissue matrix.⁵ Bath sponges lack silica spicules.

Sponges have been used in medicine for centuries. The first use in Western culture was recorded in 405 bce in The Frogs, a comedy by Aristophanes in which a sponge was placed on a character’s heart following a syncopal episode. Additionally, in many Hippocratic writings, the use of sponges is outlined in the treatment of a variety of ailments. Similarly, the ancient Chinese and Greeks used burnt sponge and seaweed as a source of iodine to treat goiters.^6,7 Modern research focuses on the use of sponge metabolites for their antineoplastic, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory effects.⁸ Identification of spongouridine and spongothymidine from the sponge Tectitethya crypta led to the development of cytarabine and gemcitabine⁸ as well as the discovery of the antiviral agent vidarabine.⁹ The monoclonal antibody assay for the detection of shellfish poisoning was prepared using the sponge Halichondria okadai.¹⁰

Mechanisms and Symptoms of Injury

Bathing sponges (silk sponges) derived from Spongia officinalis are harmless. Other sponges can exert their damaging effects through a variety of mechanisms that lead to dermatologic manifestations (eTable). Some species of sponges produce and secrete toxic metabolites (eg, crinotoxins) onto the body surface or into the surrounding water. They also are capable of synthesizing a mucous slime that can be irritating to human skin. Direct trauma also can be caused by fragments of the silica or calcium carbonate sponge skeleton penetrating the skin. Stinging members of the phylum Cnidaria can colonize the sponge, leading to injury when a human handles the sponge.^25-27

Sponge dermatitis can be divided into 2 major categories: an initial pruritic dermatitis (Figure 3) that occurs within 20 minutes to a few hours after contact and a delayed irritant dermatitis caused by penetration of the spicules and chemical agents into skin.²⁸ Importantly, different species can lead to varying manifestations.

Management

Treatment should consist of an initial decontamination; the skin should be dried, and adhesive tape or rubber cement should be utilized to remove any spicules embedded in the skin. Diluted vinegar soaks should be initiated for 10 to 30 minutes on the affected area(s) 3 or 4 times daily.¹⁹ The initial decontamination should occur immediately, as delay may lead to persistent purulent bullae that may take months to heal. Topical steroids may be used following the initial decontamination to help relieve inflammation. Antihistamines and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be used to alleviate pruritus and pain, respectively. Severe cases may require systemic glucocorticoids. Additionally, immunization status against tetanus toxoid should be assessed.³⁵ In the event of an anaphylactic reaction, it is important to maintain a patent airway and normalized blood pressure through the use of intramuscular epinephrine.³⁶ Frequent follow-up is warranted, as serious secondary infections can develop.³⁷ Patients also should be counseled on the potential for delayed dermatologic reactions, including erythema multiforme. Contact between humans and coastal environments has been increasing in the last few decades; therefore, an increase in contact with sponges is to be expected.²²

Sponges are among the oldest animals on earth, appearing more than 640 million years ago before the Cambrian explosion, a period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil records.¹ More than 10,000 species of sponges have been identified worldwide and are distributed from polar to tropical regions in both marine (Figure 1) and freshwater (Figure 2) environments. They inhabit both shallow waters as well as depths of more than 2800 m, with shallower sponges tending to be more vibrantly colored than their deeper counterparts. The wide-ranging habitats of sponges have led to size variations from as small as 0.05 mm to more than 3 m in height.² Their taxonomic phylum, Porifera (meaning pore bearers), is derived from the millions of pores lining the surface of the sponge that are used to filter planktonic organisms.³ Flagellated epithelioid cells called choanocytes line the internal chambers of sponges, creating a water current that promotes filter feeding as well as nutrient absorption across their microvilli.⁴ The body walls of many sponges consist of a collagenous skeleton made up of spongin and spicules of silicon dioxide (silica) or calcium carbonate embedded in the spongin connective tissue matrix.⁵ Bath sponges lack silica spicules.

Sponges have been used in medicine for centuries. The first use in Western culture was recorded in 405 bce in The Frogs, a comedy by Aristophanes in which a sponge was placed on a character’s heart following a syncopal episode. Additionally, in many Hippocratic writings, the use of sponges is outlined in the treatment of a variety of ailments. Similarly, the ancient Chinese and Greeks used burnt sponge and seaweed as a source of iodine to treat goiters.^6,7 Modern research focuses on the use of sponge metabolites for their antineoplastic, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory effects.⁸ Identification of spongouridine and spongothymidine from the sponge Tectitethya crypta led to the development of cytarabine and gemcitabine⁸ as well as the discovery of the antiviral agent vidarabine.⁹ The monoclonal antibody assay for the detection of shellfish poisoning was prepared using the sponge Halichondria okadai.¹⁰

Mechanisms and Symptoms of Injury

Bathing sponges (silk sponges) derived from Spongia officinalis are harmless. Other sponges can exert their damaging effects through a variety of mechanisms that lead to dermatologic manifestations (eTable). Some species of sponges produce and secrete toxic metabolites (eg, crinotoxins) onto the body surface or into the surrounding water. They also are capable of synthesizing a mucous slime that can be irritating to human skin. Direct trauma also can be caused by fragments of the silica or calcium carbonate sponge skeleton penetrating the skin. Stinging members of the phylum Cnidaria can colonize the sponge, leading to injury when a human handles the sponge.^25-27

Sponge dermatitis can be divided into 2 major categories: an initial pruritic dermatitis (Figure 3) that occurs within 20 minutes to a few hours after contact and a delayed irritant dermatitis caused by penetration of the spicules and chemical agents into skin.²⁸ Importantly, different species can lead to varying manifestations.

Management

Treatment should consist of an initial decontamination; the skin should be dried, and adhesive tape or rubber cement should be utilized to remove any spicules embedded in the skin. Diluted vinegar soaks should be initiated for 10 to 30 minutes on the affected area(s) 3 or 4 times daily.¹⁹ The initial decontamination should occur immediately, as delay may lead to persistent purulent bullae that may take months to heal. Topical steroids may be used following the initial decontamination to help relieve inflammation. Antihistamines and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be used to alleviate pruritus and pain, respectively. Severe cases may require systemic glucocorticoids. Additionally, immunization status against tetanus toxoid should be assessed.³⁵ In the event of an anaphylactic reaction, it is important to maintain a patent airway and normalized blood pressure through the use of intramuscular epinephrine.³⁶ Frequent follow-up is warranted, as serious secondary infections can develop.³⁷ Patients also should be counseled on the potential for delayed dermatologic reactions, including erythema multiforme. Contact between humans and coastal environments has been increasing in the last few decades; therefore, an increase in contact with sponges is to be expected.²²

There are numerous intrinsic risks that military servicemembers face, such as the dangers of combat, handling firearms, operating ships and heavy machinery, undersea diving, and aircraft operations. Multiple studies also have identified an increased risk for melanomas and keratinocyte cancers in those who have served on active duty.

Epidemiology

Differences in demographics are important to consider given the differences among races in the risks of skin cancers. Important racial demographic differences exist between the US Military and the general US population. Racial demographic differences also exist among the various military branches themselves. The US population is 61.0% White, 20.7% racial minorities (defined as Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, multiracial, or unknown), and 18.3% Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic or Latino was not listed as a component of racial minorities).¹ According to 2018 data, the US Military population is 52.9% White, 31.0% racial minorities, and 16.1% Hispanic or Latino.² The percentage of White military members was highest in the US Marine Corps (58.4%) and lowest in the US Navy (46.5%). The percentage of racial minorities was highest in the US Navy (38.0%) and lowest in the US Marine Corps (20.0%).² The percentage of Hispanic and Latino military members was highest in the US Marine Corps (21.6%) and lowest in the US Air Force (14.5%).²

Melanoma in Military Members

It is estimated that the annual incidence rate of melanoma in the United States is 27 per 100,000 individuals for non-Hispanic Whites, 5 per 100,000 for Hispanics, and 1 per 100,000 for Black individuals and Asians/Pacific Islanders.³ Three studies have reviewed melanoma incidence in relation to service in the US Military.

A 2011 retrospective tumor registries study of US veterans aged 45 years or older demonstrated increased incidences of melanoma compared with the general population.⁴ With age, the melanoma incidence per 100,000 person-years increased in White veterans compared to their civilian counterparts (aged 45 to 49 years, 33.62 vs 27.49; aged 50 to 54 years, 49.76 vs 32.18; aged 55 to 59 years, 178.48 vs 39.17).⁴ An increased melanoma incidence of 62% also was seen in active-duty servicemembers aged 18 to 56 years compared to their age-matched civilian peers in a 2014 retrospective cohort study.⁵

Melanoma rates also vary depending on military service branch. Across 3 separate studies, service in the US Air Force was associated with the highest risk for melanoma development. A surveillance report of cancer incidence in active-duty US Armed Forces personnel between 2000 and 2011 conducted by the Defense Medical Surveillance System showed an incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) for melanoma of 10.5 in all services, and a rate of 15.5 in the US Air Force vs 8.6 in the US Army, further highlighting the disparity between the services.⁶ The 2014 study also demonstrated a melanoma incidence rate of 17.80 in active-duty US Air Force personnel compared to 9.53 in active-duty US Army personnel.⁵ Among US Air Force active-duty personnel, one study showed a melanoma incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) of 7.59 for men and 8.98 for women compared to 6.25 and 5.46, respectively, in US Army soldiers.⁴

Keratinocyte Cancers in Military Members

Although less well studied than melanoma, keratinocyte-derived skin cancers represent a major source of disease burden both during and after active-duty service. In a retrospective chart review of dermatology patients seen at the 86th Combat Support Hospital at Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, during a 6-month period in 2008, 8% of 2696 total visits were identified to be due to skin cancer, with the overwhelming majority being for keratinocyte cancers.⁷ A 1993 retrospective chart review of World War II veterans referred for Mohs micrographic surgery showed a considerably higher incidence in those who served in the Pacific Theater compared to those who served in the European Theater. Despite having approximately equal characteristics—age, skin type, and cumulative time spent outdoors—between the 2 groups, military servicemembers deployed to the Pacific represented 66% of the patients with basal cell carcinoma and 68% of the patients with squamous cell carcinoma.⁸

Contributing Factors

There are many factors related to military service that are likely to contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer. Based on a review of the literature, we have found an increased exposure to UV radiation, low utilization of sun-protective strategies, and low overall education regarding the risks for UV exposure to be the primary contributors to increased risks for skin cancer.

UV exposure is the primary mitigatable risk factor for developing melanoma and keratinocyte cancers.^9,10 In a 2015 study of 212 military servicemembers returning from deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, 77% reported spending more than 4 hours per day working directly in the bright sun, with 64% spending more than 75% of the average day in the bright sun.¹¹ A 1984 study of World War II veterans diagnosed with melanoma also showed that 34% of those with melanoma had prior deployments to the tropics compared to 6% in age-matched controls.¹²

Even in those not deployed to overseas locations, military work still frequently involves prolonged sun exposure. In a 2015 cross-sectional study of US Air Force maintenance squadrons at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California (N=356), 67% of those surveyed reported having careers that frequently involved direct sun exposure.¹³ This occupational sun exposure may be worsened by increased UV exposure during recreational activities, as active-duty military servicemembers may reasonably be expected to engage in more outdoor exercise and leisure activities than their civilian counterparts.

Other occupation-specific risk factors also may affect skin cancer rates in certain populations. In a study of aircraft personnel that included male military and civilian pilots, a meta-standardized incidence ratio for melanoma of 3.42 was identified compared to controls not involved in aircraft work.¹⁴ Theories to explain this increased incidence of melanoma include increased exposure to ionizing radiation at high altitudes, exposure to aviation-related chemicals, and alterations in circadian rhythm.^14,15

This increased sun exposure is compounded by the overall low rates of sun protection among military members. Of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2015 study, less than 30% of servicemembers reported routine access to sunscreen, and only 13% stated that they routinely applied sunscreen when exposed to the sun. Of this same group, only 23% endorsed that the military made them very aware of their risk for skin cancer.¹¹ The low rates of sunscreen usage by those deployed to an active combat zone may partially be explained by the assumption that those individuals placed more emphasis on the acute dangers of combat rather than the perceived future dangers of skin cancer. A decreased availability of sunscreen for deployed military servicemembers, particularly those located at small austere bases where supplies are likely to be limited, likely makes the use of sunscreen even more difficult.

However, even within the continental United States, active-duty military servicemembers still exhibit low rates of sunscreen usage. In the 2015 study of US Air Force personnel in maintenance squadrons in California, less than 11% of those surveyed reported using sunscreen most of the time despite high rates of outdoor work.¹³

Another factor likely contributing to increased sun exposure and decreased sun-protection practices is the so-called invincibility complex, which is a common set of egocentric beliefs that leads to a perception that an individual is not likely to suffer the consequences of engaging in risky behaviors. Despite knowledge of the dangers associated with risky activity, individuals with an invincibility complex are more likely to view potential consequences as relevant only to others, not to themselves.¹⁶ A study of adolescent smokers in the Netherlands examined why subjects continue to smoke, despite knowledge of the potentially deadly consequences of smoking. Three common rationalizing beliefs were found: trivialization of the immediate consequences, that their smoking is only temporary and they have time in the future to stop, and that they have control over how much they smoke and can prevent fatal consequences with moderation.¹⁷ Such an invincibility complex is thought to directly run counter to the efforts of public health and educational campaigns. This belief set is thought to at least partially explain why adolescents in Australia are the most knowledgeable age cohort regarding the dangers of UV exposure but the least likely to engage in skin-protective measures.¹⁸ This inflated sense of invincibility may be leading active-duty military servicemembers to engage in unhealthy sun-exposure practices regardless of knowledge of the associated risks.

Members of the military may be uniquely susceptible to this invincibility complex. Growing evidence suggests that exposure to life-threatening circumstances may lead to long-lasting alterations in threat assessment.^19,20 A 2008 study of Iraq veterans returning from deployment found that direct exposure to violent combat and human trauma was associated with an increased perceived degree of invincibility and a higher propensity to engage in risky behaviors after returning from deployment.¹⁹ Additionally, it has been speculated that individuals with a higher degree of perceived invincibility may be more likely to pursue military service, as a higher degree of self-confidence in the face of the often dangerous circumstances of military operations may be advantageous.²⁰

In addition to scarce use of sun-protective strategies, military servicemembers also tend to lack awareness of the potential short-term and long-term harm from UV radiation. In a 2016 study of veterans undergoing treatment for skin cancer, patients reported inadequate education about skin cancer risks and strategies to decrease their chances of developing it.²¹ Sunscreen is less frequently used in males, specifically those aged 18 to 30 years; this demographic makes up 55.7% of the active-duty population.^2,22 Low income also has been associated with decreased sunscreen use; junior enlisted military servicemembers (ranks E1-E4) make up 43.8% of the military’s ranks and make less than the average annual American household income.^2,23,24

Prevention and Risk-Mitigation Strategies

Although many of the risk factors in the US Military promoting skin cancer are intrinsic to the occupation, certain steps could help minimize servicemembers’ risks. To be effective, any attempt to decrease the risk for skin cancer in the US Military must take into consideration the environment in which the military operates. To complete their mission, military personnel often are required to operate for extended periods outdoors in areas of high UV exposure, such as the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan. Outdoor work at times of peak sunlight often is required for successful mission completion, thus it would be ineffective to simply give blanket advice to avoid sun exposure.

Another important factor is the impact that official policy plays in shaping the daily actions of individual military servicemembers. In a hierarchical organization such as the US Military, unit commanders have substantial authority over the behaviors of their subordinates. Thus, strategies to mitigate skin cancer risks should be aimed at the individual servicemembers and unit commanders and at a policy level. Ultimately, a 3-pronged approach built on education, access to sun-protective gear, and increased availability to sunscreen is recommended.

Education
The foundation for any skin cancer prevention strategies should be built on the education of individual military servicemembers. The majority of active-duty members and veterans did not believe the military did enough to actively educate them on the risks for developing skin cancer.²¹ An effective educational program should focus on prevention and detection. Prevention programs should explain the role of UV exposure in the development of skin cancer, the intrinsic risks of UV exposure associated with outdoor activities, and strategies that can be implemented to reduce UV exposure and lifetime risk of skin cancer development. In a study of German outdoor workers, displays of support and concern by management regarding UV protection were associated with increases in sun-protective behaviors among the employees.²⁵

Because patient self-examinations have been shown to be associated with earlier melanoma diagnosis and a more superficial depth at diagnosis, detection programs also should focus on the identification of suspicious skin lesions, such as by teaching the ABCDEs of melanoma.²⁶ Among the general population, educational campaigns have been shown to be effective at reducing melanoma mortality.^27,28

Access to Sun-Protective Gear
The second aspect of reducing skin cancer risk should be aiming to protect military servicemembers from UV exposure. Any prevention strategy must fit within the military’s broader tactical and strategic framework.

The use of photoprotective strategies rather than the outright avoidance of sun exposure should be implemented to minimize the deleterious effects of outdoor work. The most recent study of the UV-protective properties of US Military uniforms found all tested uniforms to have either very good or excellent UV protection, with UV protection factors (UPFs) ranging from 35 to 50+.²⁹ However, this study was performed in 2002, and the majority of the uniforms tested are no longer in service. More up-to-date UPF information for existing military uniforms is not currently available. Most military commands wear baseball hat–style covers when operating outdoors, which generally provide good photoprotection with UPF ratings of 35 to 50 over the protected areas.²⁹ Unfortunately, these types of headgear offer less photoprotection than do wide-brimmed hats, which have demonstrated improved photoprotection, particularly of the neck, cheeks, ears, and chin.³⁰ A wide-brimmed hat, known as the boonie hat, was originally proposed for military use in 1966 to provide protection of servicemembers’ faces and necks from the intense sun of Vietnam. Currently, the use of the boonie hat typically is prohibited for units not engaged in combat or combat-support roles and requires authorization by the unit-level commander.³¹ Because of its perception as “unmilitary appearing” by many unit commanders and its restriction of use to combat-related units, the boonie hat is not consistently used. Increasing the use of this type of wide-brimmed hat would be an important asset in decreasing chronic UV exposure in military servicemembers, particularly on those parts of the body where skin cancer occurrence is the greatest.³² Policies should be aimed at increasing the use of the boonie hat, both through expanding its availability to troops in non–combat-related fields and by encouraging unit commanders to authorize its use in their units.

Sunscreen Availability
Improving the use of sunscreen is another impactful strategy that could be undertaken to decrease the risk for skin cancer in military servicemembers. The use of sunscreen is low in both those deployed overseas and those stationed within the United States. Improving access to sunscreen, particularly in the deployed setting, also could reduce barriers to use. Providing sunscreen directly to servicemembers, either when issuing gear or integrated within Meals Ready to Eat, could remove both the financial and logistical barriers to sunscreen utilization. Centralized troop-gathering locations, such as dining facilities, could be utilized both for the mass distribution of sunscreen and to display educational material. Unit commanders also could mandate times for servicemembers to stop work and apply sunscreen at regularly scheduled intervals.

The composition and delivery vehicle of sunscreen may have an impact on its efficacy and ease of use in the field. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommends using sunscreen that is broad spectrum, sun protection factor (SPF) 30 or greater, and water resistant.³³ However, the AAD does not make a recommendation of whether to use a physical sunscreen (such as titanium dioxide) or a chemical sunscreen. If applied in equal amounts, a chemical sunscreen and a physical sunscreen with an equal SPF should offer the same UV protection. However, a study in the British Journal of Dermatology showed that subjects applied only two-thirds the quantity of physical sunscreen compared to those applying chemical sunscreen, achieving approximately only one-half the SPF as provided by the chemical sunscreen.³⁴ Because sunscreen is only effective when it is used, consideration should be given to the preferences of the military population when selecting sunscreens. A review of consumer preferences of sunscreen qualities showed that sunscreens that were nongreasy and did not leave a residue were given the most favorable rankings.³⁵ In recent years, sunscreen sprays have become increasingly popular. When adequately applied, sprays have been shown to be equally effective as sunscreen lotions.³⁶ However, although recommendations have been issued by both the AAD and the US Food and Drug Administration on the application of sunscreen lotion to adequately cover exposed skin, no such recommendations have been given for sunscreen sprays.³³ Some safety concerns also remain regarding the flammability of aerosol sunscreens, which could be exacerbated in a combat situation.³⁷

However, there are some obvious downsides to sunscreen use. During certain operational tasks, particularly in combat settings, it may not be feasible or even safe to stop working to apply sunscreen at the 2-hour intervals required for effective UV protection.³⁸ Water exposure or large amounts of perspiration also would cause sunscreen to lose effectiveness earlier than expected. Logistically, it may be challenging to regularly supply sunscreen to small austere bases in remote locations.

Final Thoughts

The men and women of our armed forces already undertake great risk in the defense of our country. It should be ensured that their risk for developing skin cancer is made as low as possible, while still allowing them to successfully accomplish their mission. Multiple studies have shown servicemembers to be at an increased risk for skin cancer, particularly melanoma. We believe the primary factor behind this increased risk is occupational UV exposure, which is compounded by the suboptimal use of sun-protective strategies. By educating our servicemembers about their risk for skin cancer and promoting increased UV protection, we can effectively reduce the burden of skin cancer on our active-duty servicemembers and veterans.

There are numerous intrinsic risks that military servicemembers face, such as the dangers of combat, handling firearms, operating ships and heavy machinery, undersea diving, and aircraft operations. Multiple studies also have identified an increased risk for melanomas and keratinocyte cancers in those who have served on active duty.

Epidemiology

Differences in demographics are important to consider given the differences among races in the risks of skin cancers. Important racial demographic differences exist between the US Military and the general US population. Racial demographic differences also exist among the various military branches themselves. The US population is 61.0% White, 20.7% racial minorities (defined as Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, multiracial, or unknown), and 18.3% Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic or Latino was not listed as a component of racial minorities).¹ According to 2018 data, the US Military population is 52.9% White, 31.0% racial minorities, and 16.1% Hispanic or Latino.² The percentage of White military members was highest in the US Marine Corps (58.4%) and lowest in the US Navy (46.5%). The percentage of racial minorities was highest in the US Navy (38.0%) and lowest in the US Marine Corps (20.0%).² The percentage of Hispanic and Latino military members was highest in the US Marine Corps (21.6%) and lowest in the US Air Force (14.5%).²

Melanoma in Military Members

It is estimated that the annual incidence rate of melanoma in the United States is 27 per 100,000 individuals for non-Hispanic Whites, 5 per 100,000 for Hispanics, and 1 per 100,000 for Black individuals and Asians/Pacific Islanders.³ Three studies have reviewed melanoma incidence in relation to service in the US Military.

A 2011 retrospective tumor registries study of US veterans aged 45 years or older demonstrated increased incidences of melanoma compared with the general population.⁴ With age, the melanoma incidence per 100,000 person-years increased in White veterans compared to their civilian counterparts (aged 45 to 49 years, 33.62 vs 27.49; aged 50 to 54 years, 49.76 vs 32.18; aged 55 to 59 years, 178.48 vs 39.17).⁴ An increased melanoma incidence of 62% also was seen in active-duty servicemembers aged 18 to 56 years compared to their age-matched civilian peers in a 2014 retrospective cohort study.⁵

Melanoma rates also vary depending on military service branch. Across 3 separate studies, service in the US Air Force was associated with the highest risk for melanoma development. A surveillance report of cancer incidence in active-duty US Armed Forces personnel between 2000 and 2011 conducted by the Defense Medical Surveillance System showed an incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) for melanoma of 10.5 in all services, and a rate of 15.5 in the US Air Force vs 8.6 in the US Army, further highlighting the disparity between the services.⁶ The 2014 study also demonstrated a melanoma incidence rate of 17.80 in active-duty US Air Force personnel compared to 9.53 in active-duty US Army personnel.⁵ Among US Air Force active-duty personnel, one study showed a melanoma incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) of 7.59 for men and 8.98 for women compared to 6.25 and 5.46, respectively, in US Army soldiers.⁴

Keratinocyte Cancers in Military Members

Although less well studied than melanoma, keratinocyte-derived skin cancers represent a major source of disease burden both during and after active-duty service. In a retrospective chart review of dermatology patients seen at the 86th Combat Support Hospital at Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, during a 6-month period in 2008, 8% of 2696 total visits were identified to be due to skin cancer, with the overwhelming majority being for keratinocyte cancers.⁷ A 1993 retrospective chart review of World War II veterans referred for Mohs micrographic surgery showed a considerably higher incidence in those who served in the Pacific Theater compared to those who served in the European Theater. Despite having approximately equal characteristics—age, skin type, and cumulative time spent outdoors—between the 2 groups, military servicemembers deployed to the Pacific represented 66% of the patients with basal cell carcinoma and 68% of the patients with squamous cell carcinoma.⁸

Contributing Factors

There are many factors related to military service that are likely to contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer. Based on a review of the literature, we have found an increased exposure to UV radiation, low utilization of sun-protective strategies, and low overall education regarding the risks for UV exposure to be the primary contributors to increased risks for skin cancer.

UV exposure is the primary mitigatable risk factor for developing melanoma and keratinocyte cancers.^9,10 In a 2015 study of 212 military servicemembers returning from deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, 77% reported spending more than 4 hours per day working directly in the bright sun, with 64% spending more than 75% of the average day in the bright sun.¹¹ A 1984 study of World War II veterans diagnosed with melanoma also showed that 34% of those with melanoma had prior deployments to the tropics compared to 6% in age-matched controls.¹²

Even in those not deployed to overseas locations, military work still frequently involves prolonged sun exposure. In a 2015 cross-sectional study of US Air Force maintenance squadrons at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California (N=356), 67% of those surveyed reported having careers that frequently involved direct sun exposure.¹³ This occupational sun exposure may be worsened by increased UV exposure during recreational activities, as active-duty military servicemembers may reasonably be expected to engage in more outdoor exercise and leisure activities than their civilian counterparts.

Other occupation-specific risk factors also may affect skin cancer rates in certain populations. In a study of aircraft personnel that included male military and civilian pilots, a meta-standardized incidence ratio for melanoma of 3.42 was identified compared to controls not involved in aircraft work.¹⁴ Theories to explain this increased incidence of melanoma include increased exposure to ionizing radiation at high altitudes, exposure to aviation-related chemicals, and alterations in circadian rhythm.^14,15

This increased sun exposure is compounded by the overall low rates of sun protection among military members. Of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2015 study, less than 30% of servicemembers reported routine access to sunscreen, and only 13% stated that they routinely applied sunscreen when exposed to the sun. Of this same group, only 23% endorsed that the military made them very aware of their risk for skin cancer.¹¹ The low rates of sunscreen usage by those deployed to an active combat zone may partially be explained by the assumption that those individuals placed more emphasis on the acute dangers of combat rather than the perceived future dangers of skin cancer. A decreased availability of sunscreen for deployed military servicemembers, particularly those located at small austere bases where supplies are likely to be limited, likely makes the use of sunscreen even more difficult.

However, even within the continental United States, active-duty military servicemembers still exhibit low rates of sunscreen usage. In the 2015 study of US Air Force personnel in maintenance squadrons in California, less than 11% of those surveyed reported using sunscreen most of the time despite high rates of outdoor work.¹³

Another factor likely contributing to increased sun exposure and decreased sun-protection practices is the so-called invincibility complex, which is a common set of egocentric beliefs that leads to a perception that an individual is not likely to suffer the consequences of engaging in risky behaviors. Despite knowledge of the dangers associated with risky activity, individuals with an invincibility complex are more likely to view potential consequences as relevant only to others, not to themselves.¹⁶ A study of adolescent smokers in the Netherlands examined why subjects continue to smoke, despite knowledge of the potentially deadly consequences of smoking. Three common rationalizing beliefs were found: trivialization of the immediate consequences, that their smoking is only temporary and they have time in the future to stop, and that they have control over how much they smoke and can prevent fatal consequences with moderation.¹⁷ Such an invincibility complex is thought to directly run counter to the efforts of public health and educational campaigns. This belief set is thought to at least partially explain why adolescents in Australia are the most knowledgeable age cohort regarding the dangers of UV exposure but the least likely to engage in skin-protective measures.¹⁸ This inflated sense of invincibility may be leading active-duty military servicemembers to engage in unhealthy sun-exposure practices regardless of knowledge of the associated risks.

Members of the military may be uniquely susceptible to this invincibility complex. Growing evidence suggests that exposure to life-threatening circumstances may lead to long-lasting alterations in threat assessment.^19,20 A 2008 study of Iraq veterans returning from deployment found that direct exposure to violent combat and human trauma was associated with an increased perceived degree of invincibility and a higher propensity to engage in risky behaviors after returning from deployment.¹⁹ Additionally, it has been speculated that individuals with a higher degree of perceived invincibility may be more likely to pursue military service, as a higher degree of self-confidence in the face of the often dangerous circumstances of military operations may be advantageous.²⁰

In addition to scarce use of sun-protective strategies, military servicemembers also tend to lack awareness of the potential short-term and long-term harm from UV radiation. In a 2016 study of veterans undergoing treatment for skin cancer, patients reported inadequate education about skin cancer risks and strategies to decrease their chances of developing it.²¹ Sunscreen is less frequently used in males, specifically those aged 18 to 30 years; this demographic makes up 55.7% of the active-duty population.^2,22 Low income also has been associated with decreased sunscreen use; junior enlisted military servicemembers (ranks E1-E4) make up 43.8% of the military’s ranks and make less than the average annual American household income.^2,23,24

Prevention and Risk-Mitigation Strategies

Although many of the risk factors in the US Military promoting skin cancer are intrinsic to the occupation, certain steps could help minimize servicemembers’ risks. To be effective, any attempt to decrease the risk for skin cancer in the US Military must take into consideration the environment in which the military operates. To complete their mission, military personnel often are required to operate for extended periods outdoors in areas of high UV exposure, such as the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan. Outdoor work at times of peak sunlight often is required for successful mission completion, thus it would be ineffective to simply give blanket advice to avoid sun exposure.

Another important factor is the impact that official policy plays in shaping the daily actions of individual military servicemembers. In a hierarchical organization such as the US Military, unit commanders have substantial authority over the behaviors of their subordinates. Thus, strategies to mitigate skin cancer risks should be aimed at the individual servicemembers and unit commanders and at a policy level. Ultimately, a 3-pronged approach built on education, access to sun-protective gear, and increased availability to sunscreen is recommended.

Education
The foundation for any skin cancer prevention strategies should be built on the education of individual military servicemembers. The majority of active-duty members and veterans did not believe the military did enough to actively educate them on the risks for developing skin cancer.²¹ An effective educational program should focus on prevention and detection. Prevention programs should explain the role of UV exposure in the development of skin cancer, the intrinsic risks of UV exposure associated with outdoor activities, and strategies that can be implemented to reduce UV exposure and lifetime risk of skin cancer development. In a study of German outdoor workers, displays of support and concern by management regarding UV protection were associated with increases in sun-protective behaviors among the employees.²⁵

Because patient self-examinations have been shown to be associated with earlier melanoma diagnosis and a more superficial depth at diagnosis, detection programs also should focus on the identification of suspicious skin lesions, such as by teaching the ABCDEs of melanoma.²⁶ Among the general population, educational campaigns have been shown to be effective at reducing melanoma mortality.^27,28

Access to Sun-Protective Gear
The second aspect of reducing skin cancer risk should be aiming to protect military servicemembers from UV exposure. Any prevention strategy must fit within the military’s broader tactical and strategic framework.

The use of photoprotective strategies rather than the outright avoidance of sun exposure should be implemented to minimize the deleterious effects of outdoor work. The most recent study of the UV-protective properties of US Military uniforms found all tested uniforms to have either very good or excellent UV protection, with UV protection factors (UPFs) ranging from 35 to 50+.²⁹ However, this study was performed in 2002, and the majority of the uniforms tested are no longer in service. More up-to-date UPF information for existing military uniforms is not currently available. Most military commands wear baseball hat–style covers when operating outdoors, which generally provide good photoprotection with UPF ratings of 35 to 50 over the protected areas.²⁹ Unfortunately, these types of headgear offer less photoprotection than do wide-brimmed hats, which have demonstrated improved photoprotection, particularly of the neck, cheeks, ears, and chin.³⁰ A wide-brimmed hat, known as the boonie hat, was originally proposed for military use in 1966 to provide protection of servicemembers’ faces and necks from the intense sun of Vietnam. Currently, the use of the boonie hat typically is prohibited for units not engaged in combat or combat-support roles and requires authorization by the unit-level commander.³¹ Because of its perception as “unmilitary appearing” by many unit commanders and its restriction of use to combat-related units, the boonie hat is not consistently used. Increasing the use of this type of wide-brimmed hat would be an important asset in decreasing chronic UV exposure in military servicemembers, particularly on those parts of the body where skin cancer occurrence is the greatest.³² Policies should be aimed at increasing the use of the boonie hat, both through expanding its availability to troops in non–combat-related fields and by encouraging unit commanders to authorize its use in their units.

Sunscreen Availability
Improving the use of sunscreen is another impactful strategy that could be undertaken to decrease the risk for skin cancer in military servicemembers. The use of sunscreen is low in both those deployed overseas and those stationed within the United States. Improving access to sunscreen, particularly in the deployed setting, also could reduce barriers to use. Providing sunscreen directly to servicemembers, either when issuing gear or integrated within Meals Ready to Eat, could remove both the financial and logistical barriers to sunscreen utilization. Centralized troop-gathering locations, such as dining facilities, could be utilized both for the mass distribution of sunscreen and to display educational material. Unit commanders also could mandate times for servicemembers to stop work and apply sunscreen at regularly scheduled intervals.

The composition and delivery vehicle of sunscreen may have an impact on its efficacy and ease of use in the field. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommends using sunscreen that is broad spectrum, sun protection factor (SPF) 30 or greater, and water resistant.³³ However, the AAD does not make a recommendation of whether to use a physical sunscreen (such as titanium dioxide) or a chemical sunscreen. If applied in equal amounts, a chemical sunscreen and a physical sunscreen with an equal SPF should offer the same UV protection. However, a study in the British Journal of Dermatology showed that subjects applied only two-thirds the quantity of physical sunscreen compared to those applying chemical sunscreen, achieving approximately only one-half the SPF as provided by the chemical sunscreen.³⁴ Because sunscreen is only effective when it is used, consideration should be given to the preferences of the military population when selecting sunscreens. A review of consumer preferences of sunscreen qualities showed that sunscreens that were nongreasy and did not leave a residue were given the most favorable rankings.³⁵ In recent years, sunscreen sprays have become increasingly popular. When adequately applied, sprays have been shown to be equally effective as sunscreen lotions.³⁶ However, although recommendations have been issued by both the AAD and the US Food and Drug Administration on the application of sunscreen lotion to adequately cover exposed skin, no such recommendations have been given for sunscreen sprays.³³ Some safety concerns also remain regarding the flammability of aerosol sunscreens, which could be exacerbated in a combat situation.³⁷

However, there are some obvious downsides to sunscreen use. During certain operational tasks, particularly in combat settings, it may not be feasible or even safe to stop working to apply sunscreen at the 2-hour intervals required for effective UV protection.³⁸ Water exposure or large amounts of perspiration also would cause sunscreen to lose effectiveness earlier than expected. Logistically, it may be challenging to regularly supply sunscreen to small austere bases in remote locations.

Final Thoughts

The men and women of our armed forces already undertake great risk in the defense of our country. It should be ensured that their risk for developing skin cancer is made as low as possible, while still allowing them to successfully accomplish their mission. Multiple studies have shown servicemembers to be at an increased risk for skin cancer, particularly melanoma. We believe the primary factor behind this increased risk is occupational UV exposure, which is compounded by the suboptimal use of sun-protective strategies. By educating our servicemembers about their risk for skin cancer and promoting increased UV protection, we can effectively reduce the burden of skin cancer on our active-duty servicemembers and veterans.

There are numerous intrinsic risks that military servicemembers face, such as the dangers of combat, handling firearms, operating ships and heavy machinery, undersea diving, and aircraft operations. Multiple studies also have identified an increased risk for melanomas and keratinocyte cancers in those who have served on active duty.

Epidemiology

Differences in demographics are important to consider given the differences among races in the risks of skin cancers. Important racial demographic differences exist between the US Military and the general US population. Racial demographic differences also exist among the various military branches themselves. The US population is 61.0% White, 20.7% racial minorities (defined as Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, multiracial, or unknown), and 18.3% Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic or Latino was not listed as a component of racial minorities).¹ According to 2018 data, the US Military population is 52.9% White, 31.0% racial minorities, and 16.1% Hispanic or Latino.² The percentage of White military members was highest in the US Marine Corps (58.4%) and lowest in the US Navy (46.5%). The percentage of racial minorities was highest in the US Navy (38.0%) and lowest in the US Marine Corps (20.0%).² The percentage of Hispanic and Latino military members was highest in the US Marine Corps (21.6%) and lowest in the US Air Force (14.5%).²

Melanoma in Military Members

It is estimated that the annual incidence rate of melanoma in the United States is 27 per 100,000 individuals for non-Hispanic Whites, 5 per 100,000 for Hispanics, and 1 per 100,000 for Black individuals and Asians/Pacific Islanders.³ Three studies have reviewed melanoma incidence in relation to service in the US Military.

A 2011 retrospective tumor registries study of US veterans aged 45 years or older demonstrated increased incidences of melanoma compared with the general population.⁴ With age, the melanoma incidence per 100,000 person-years increased in White veterans compared to their civilian counterparts (aged 45 to 49 years, 33.62 vs 27.49; aged 50 to 54 years, 49.76 vs 32.18; aged 55 to 59 years, 178.48 vs 39.17).⁴ An increased melanoma incidence of 62% also was seen in active-duty servicemembers aged 18 to 56 years compared to their age-matched civilian peers in a 2014 retrospective cohort study.⁵

Melanoma rates also vary depending on military service branch. Across 3 separate studies, service in the US Air Force was associated with the highest risk for melanoma development. A surveillance report of cancer incidence in active-duty US Armed Forces personnel between 2000 and 2011 conducted by the Defense Medical Surveillance System showed an incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) for melanoma of 10.5 in all services, and a rate of 15.5 in the US Air Force vs 8.6 in the US Army, further highlighting the disparity between the services.⁶ The 2014 study also demonstrated a melanoma incidence rate of 17.80 in active-duty US Air Force personnel compared to 9.53 in active-duty US Army personnel.⁵ Among US Air Force active-duty personnel, one study showed a melanoma incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) of 7.59 for men and 8.98 for women compared to 6.25 and 5.46, respectively, in US Army soldiers.⁴

Keratinocyte Cancers in Military Members

Although less well studied than melanoma, keratinocyte-derived skin cancers represent a major source of disease burden both during and after active-duty service. In a retrospective chart review of dermatology patients seen at the 86th Combat Support Hospital at Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, during a 6-month period in 2008, 8% of 2696 total visits were identified to be due to skin cancer, with the overwhelming majority being for keratinocyte cancers.⁷ A 1993 retrospective chart review of World War II veterans referred for Mohs micrographic surgery showed a considerably higher incidence in those who served in the Pacific Theater compared to those who served in the European Theater. Despite having approximately equal characteristics—age, skin type, and cumulative time spent outdoors—between the 2 groups, military servicemembers deployed to the Pacific represented 66% of the patients with basal cell carcinoma and 68% of the patients with squamous cell carcinoma.⁸

Contributing Factors

There are many factors related to military service that are likely to contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer. Based on a review of the literature, we have found an increased exposure to UV radiation, low utilization of sun-protective strategies, and low overall education regarding the risks for UV exposure to be the primary contributors to increased risks for skin cancer.

UV exposure is the primary mitigatable risk factor for developing melanoma and keratinocyte cancers.^9,10 In a 2015 study of 212 military servicemembers returning from deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, 77% reported spending more than 4 hours per day working directly in the bright sun, with 64% spending more than 75% of the average day in the bright sun.¹¹ A 1984 study of World War II veterans diagnosed with melanoma also showed that 34% of those with melanoma had prior deployments to the tropics compared to 6% in age-matched controls.¹²

Even in those not deployed to overseas locations, military work still frequently involves prolonged sun exposure. In a 2015 cross-sectional study of US Air Force maintenance squadrons at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California (N=356), 67% of those surveyed reported having careers that frequently involved direct sun exposure.¹³ This occupational sun exposure may be worsened by increased UV exposure during recreational activities, as active-duty military servicemembers may reasonably be expected to engage in more outdoor exercise and leisure activities than their civilian counterparts.

Other occupation-specific risk factors also may affect skin cancer rates in certain populations. In a study of aircraft personnel that included male military and civilian pilots, a meta-standardized incidence ratio for melanoma of 3.42 was identified compared to controls not involved in aircraft work.¹⁴ Theories to explain this increased incidence of melanoma include increased exposure to ionizing radiation at high altitudes, exposure to aviation-related chemicals, and alterations in circadian rhythm.^14,15

This increased sun exposure is compounded by the overall low rates of sun protection among military members. Of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2015 study, less than 30% of servicemembers reported routine access to sunscreen, and only 13% stated that they routinely applied sunscreen when exposed to the sun. Of this same group, only 23% endorsed that the military made them very aware of their risk for skin cancer.¹¹ The low rates of sunscreen usage by those deployed to an active combat zone may partially be explained by the assumption that those individuals placed more emphasis on the acute dangers of combat rather than the perceived future dangers of skin cancer. A decreased availability of sunscreen for deployed military servicemembers, particularly those located at small austere bases where supplies are likely to be limited, likely makes the use of sunscreen even more difficult.

However, even within the continental United States, active-duty military servicemembers still exhibit low rates of sunscreen usage. In the 2015 study of US Air Force personnel in maintenance squadrons in California, less than 11% of those surveyed reported using sunscreen most of the time despite high rates of outdoor work.¹³

Another factor likely contributing to increased sun exposure and decreased sun-protection practices is the so-called invincibility complex, which is a common set of egocentric beliefs that leads to a perception that an individual is not likely to suffer the consequences of engaging in risky behaviors. Despite knowledge of the dangers associated with risky activity, individuals with an invincibility complex are more likely to view potential consequences as relevant only to others, not to themselves.¹⁶ A study of adolescent smokers in the Netherlands examined why subjects continue to smoke, despite knowledge of the potentially deadly consequences of smoking. Three common rationalizing beliefs were found: trivialization of the immediate consequences, that their smoking is only temporary and they have time in the future to stop, and that they have control over how much they smoke and can prevent fatal consequences with moderation.¹⁷ Such an invincibility complex is thought to directly run counter to the efforts of public health and educational campaigns. This belief set is thought to at least partially explain why adolescents in Australia are the most knowledgeable age cohort regarding the dangers of UV exposure but the least likely to engage in skin-protective measures.¹⁸ This inflated sense of invincibility may be leading active-duty military servicemembers to engage in unhealthy sun-exposure practices regardless of knowledge of the associated risks.

Members of the military may be uniquely susceptible to this invincibility complex. Growing evidence suggests that exposure to life-threatening circumstances may lead to long-lasting alterations in threat assessment.^19,20 A 2008 study of Iraq veterans returning from deployment found that direct exposure to violent combat and human trauma was associated with an increased perceived degree of invincibility and a higher propensity to engage in risky behaviors after returning from deployment.¹⁹ Additionally, it has been speculated that individuals with a higher degree of perceived invincibility may be more likely to pursue military service, as a higher degree of self-confidence in the face of the often dangerous circumstances of military operations may be advantageous.²⁰

In addition to scarce use of sun-protective strategies, military servicemembers also tend to lack awareness of the potential short-term and long-term harm from UV radiation. In a 2016 study of veterans undergoing treatment for skin cancer, patients reported inadequate education about skin cancer risks and strategies to decrease their chances of developing it.²¹ Sunscreen is less frequently used in males, specifically those aged 18 to 30 years; this demographic makes up 55.7% of the active-duty population.^2,22 Low income also has been associated with decreased sunscreen use; junior enlisted military servicemembers (ranks E1-E4) make up 43.8% of the military’s ranks and make less than the average annual American household income.^2,23,24

Prevention and Risk-Mitigation Strategies

Although many of the risk factors in the US Military promoting skin cancer are intrinsic to the occupation, certain steps could help minimize servicemembers’ risks. To be effective, any attempt to decrease the risk for skin cancer in the US Military must take into consideration the environment in which the military operates. To complete their mission, military personnel often are required to operate for extended periods outdoors in areas of high UV exposure, such as the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan. Outdoor work at times of peak sunlight often is required for successful mission completion, thus it would be ineffective to simply give blanket advice to avoid sun exposure.

Another important factor is the impact that official policy plays in shaping the daily actions of individual military servicemembers. In a hierarchical organization such as the US Military, unit commanders have substantial authority over the behaviors of their subordinates. Thus, strategies to mitigate skin cancer risks should be aimed at the individual servicemembers and unit commanders and at a policy level. Ultimately, a 3-pronged approach built on education, access to sun-protective gear, and increased availability to sunscreen is recommended.

Education
The foundation for any skin cancer prevention strategies should be built on the education of individual military servicemembers. The majority of active-duty members and veterans did not believe the military did enough to actively educate them on the risks for developing skin cancer.²¹ An effective educational program should focus on prevention and detection. Prevention programs should explain the role of UV exposure in the development of skin cancer, the intrinsic risks of UV exposure associated with outdoor activities, and strategies that can be implemented to reduce UV exposure and lifetime risk of skin cancer development. In a study of German outdoor workers, displays of support and concern by management regarding UV protection were associated with increases in sun-protective behaviors among the employees.²⁵

Because patient self-examinations have been shown to be associated with earlier melanoma diagnosis and a more superficial depth at diagnosis, detection programs also should focus on the identification of suspicious skin lesions, such as by teaching the ABCDEs of melanoma.²⁶ Among the general population, educational campaigns have been shown to be effective at reducing melanoma mortality.^27,28

Access to Sun-Protective Gear
The second aspect of reducing skin cancer risk should be aiming to protect military servicemembers from UV exposure. Any prevention strategy must fit within the military’s broader tactical and strategic framework.

The use of photoprotective strategies rather than the outright avoidance of sun exposure should be implemented to minimize the deleterious effects of outdoor work. The most recent study of the UV-protective properties of US Military uniforms found all tested uniforms to have either very good or excellent UV protection, with UV protection factors (UPFs) ranging from 35 to 50+.²⁹ However, this study was performed in 2002, and the majority of the uniforms tested are no longer in service. More up-to-date UPF information for existing military uniforms is not currently available. Most military commands wear baseball hat–style covers when operating outdoors, which generally provide good photoprotection with UPF ratings of 35 to 50 over the protected areas.²⁹ Unfortunately, these types of headgear offer less photoprotection than do wide-brimmed hats, which have demonstrated improved photoprotection, particularly of the neck, cheeks, ears, and chin.³⁰ A wide-brimmed hat, known as the boonie hat, was originally proposed for military use in 1966 to provide protection of servicemembers’ faces and necks from the intense sun of Vietnam. Currently, the use of the boonie hat typically is prohibited for units not engaged in combat or combat-support roles and requires authorization by the unit-level commander.³¹ Because of its perception as “unmilitary appearing” by many unit commanders and its restriction of use to combat-related units, the boonie hat is not consistently used. Increasing the use of this type of wide-brimmed hat would be an important asset in decreasing chronic UV exposure in military servicemembers, particularly on those parts of the body where skin cancer occurrence is the greatest.³² Policies should be aimed at increasing the use of the boonie hat, both through expanding its availability to troops in non–combat-related fields and by encouraging unit commanders to authorize its use in their units.

Sunscreen Availability
Improving the use of sunscreen is another impactful strategy that could be undertaken to decrease the risk for skin cancer in military servicemembers. The use of sunscreen is low in both those deployed overseas and those stationed within the United States. Improving access to sunscreen, particularly in the deployed setting, also could reduce barriers to use. Providing sunscreen directly to servicemembers, either when issuing gear or integrated within Meals Ready to Eat, could remove both the financial and logistical barriers to sunscreen utilization. Centralized troop-gathering locations, such as dining facilities, could be utilized both for the mass distribution of sunscreen and to display educational material. Unit commanders also could mandate times for servicemembers to stop work and apply sunscreen at regularly scheduled intervals.

The composition and delivery vehicle of sunscreen may have an impact on its efficacy and ease of use in the field. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommends using sunscreen that is broad spectrum, sun protection factor (SPF) 30 or greater, and water resistant.³³ However, the AAD does not make a recommendation of whether to use a physical sunscreen (such as titanium dioxide) or a chemical sunscreen. If applied in equal amounts, a chemical sunscreen and a physical sunscreen with an equal SPF should offer the same UV protection. However, a study in the British Journal of Dermatology showed that subjects applied only two-thirds the quantity of physical sunscreen compared to those applying chemical sunscreen, achieving approximately only one-half the SPF as provided by the chemical sunscreen.³⁴ Because sunscreen is only effective when it is used, consideration should be given to the preferences of the military population when selecting sunscreens. A review of consumer preferences of sunscreen qualities showed that sunscreens that were nongreasy and did not leave a residue were given the most favorable rankings.³⁵ In recent years, sunscreen sprays have become increasingly popular. When adequately applied, sprays have been shown to be equally effective as sunscreen lotions.³⁶ However, although recommendations have been issued by both the AAD and the US Food and Drug Administration on the application of sunscreen lotion to adequately cover exposed skin, no such recommendations have been given for sunscreen sprays.³³ Some safety concerns also remain regarding the flammability of aerosol sunscreens, which could be exacerbated in a combat situation.³⁷

However, there are some obvious downsides to sunscreen use. During certain operational tasks, particularly in combat settings, it may not be feasible or even safe to stop working to apply sunscreen at the 2-hour intervals required for effective UV protection.³⁸ Water exposure or large amounts of perspiration also would cause sunscreen to lose effectiveness earlier than expected. Logistically, it may be challenging to regularly supply sunscreen to small austere bases in remote locations.

Final Thoughts

The men and women of our armed forces already undertake great risk in the defense of our country. It should be ensured that their risk for developing skin cancer is made as low as possible, while still allowing them to successfully accomplish their mission. Multiple studies have shown servicemembers to be at an increased risk for skin cancer, particularly melanoma. We believe the primary factor behind this increased risk is occupational UV exposure, which is compounded by the suboptimal use of sun-protective strategies. By educating our servicemembers about their risk for skin cancer and promoting increased UV protection, we can effectively reduce the burden of skin cancer on our active-duty servicemembers and veterans.

The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).

The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.

The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.

“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Expanded use of transcatheter procedures

“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.

“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”

The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.

“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
 

A tiered approach to VHD care

A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.

“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.

“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
 

Eagerly anticipated

The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.

Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.

“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.

“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”

The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.

“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.

Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.

Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.

“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).

The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.

The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.

“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Expanded use of transcatheter procedures

“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.

“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”

The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.

“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
 

A tiered approach to VHD care

A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.

“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.

“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
 

Eagerly anticipated

The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.

Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.

“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.

“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”

The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.

“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.

Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.

Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.

“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).

The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.

The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.

“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Expanded use of transcatheter procedures

“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.

“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”

The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.

“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
 

A tiered approach to VHD care

A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.

“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.

“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
 

Eagerly anticipated

The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.

Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.

“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.

“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”

The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.

“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.

Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.

Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.

“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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