The association of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with increased cancer risk compared with the general population has long been known, though the balance between risk related to RA disease activity compared with risk related to immunosuppressive medication has not been clear. This increased risk is seen primarily with lymphoma and lung cancer, and prior research has suggested a risk with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), such as anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Beydon and colleagues performed a cohort study using a French national claims database; they looked at patients seen for at least 1 year with treatment for RA and compared the incidence of cancer by type. In over 257,000 patients, nearly 24,000 cancer cases were found. The most common cancers were breast, colon, lung, and prostate. All-cancer risk was > 1.2 (standardized incidence ratio) compared with those without cancer, higher in men compared with women, and the risk was increased in patients who received conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, and rituximab, but not interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Given that the risk was most highly associated with exposure to rituximab, this may show a type of bias rendering the study difficult to interpret, as rituximab is considered "safe" in cancer, and treatments such as csDMARD may have been given because they were not contraindicated in patients with cancer. This renders the study’s other results, such as lower risk with JAKi or higher risk with abatacept, hard to interpret.

Hayashi and colleagues performed a "real-world" comparative study using data from the Japanese observational ANSWER registry database to compare effectiveness of different JAKi over 6 months, a question of high interest given the availability of several JAKi currently. Within the database of over 11,000 participants, only 622 patients were exposed to tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib, or upadacitinib, with 361 included in the final analysis due to missing baseline data (later missing data were imputed). Treatment retention rates were similar among all four JAKi, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events and due to lack of efficacy were similar as well. There was no significant difference in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), or C-reactive protein after 6 months between the four JAKi. Baricitinib had higher rates of CDAI low disease activity and remission at 6 months when used as a first-line biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARD. However, this and other specific findings related to individual JAKi may be affected by the relatively small number of patients included and exposed to each JAKi, and the relatively short duration of follow-up (in terms of drug discontinuation), thus countering the initial premise for the study.

Finally, another important real-world study, by Tageldin and colleagues, looked at tapering therapy in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Tapering (RHEUMTAP) cohort of patients with RA in sustained disease remission or low disease activity for at least 6 months on stable medications (infused bDMARD excluded). This 2-year prospective cohort included reducing frequency, reducing dose, and stopping medication according to predefined regimens. Of 131 patients, 40% underwent tapering, with more flares in the taper group over > 400 days of follow-up; flare rates were much higher in those tapering b/tsDMARD compared with csDMARD. Though limited by small numbers in examining the three different tapering groups, this real-world study provides an important counterpoint to the notion that medication can be tapered easily in RA patients doing well. A more stringent definition or longer duration of disease remission may also affect this finding.

The association of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with increased cancer risk compared with the general population has long been known, though the balance between risk related to RA disease activity compared with risk related to immunosuppressive medication has not been clear. This increased risk is seen primarily with lymphoma and lung cancer, and prior research has suggested a risk with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), such as anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Beydon and colleagues performed a cohort study using a French national claims database; they looked at patients seen for at least 1 year with treatment for RA and compared the incidence of cancer by type. In over 257,000 patients, nearly 24,000 cancer cases were found. The most common cancers were breast, colon, lung, and prostate. All-cancer risk was > 1.2 (standardized incidence ratio) compared with those without cancer, higher in men compared with women, and the risk was increased in patients who received conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, and rituximab, but not interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Given that the risk was most highly associated with exposure to rituximab, this may show a type of bias rendering the study difficult to interpret, as rituximab is considered "safe" in cancer, and treatments such as csDMARD may have been given because they were not contraindicated in patients with cancer. This renders the study’s other results, such as lower risk with JAKi or higher risk with abatacept, hard to interpret.

Hayashi and colleagues performed a "real-world" comparative study using data from the Japanese observational ANSWER registry database to compare effectiveness of different JAKi over 6 months, a question of high interest given the availability of several JAKi currently. Within the database of over 11,000 participants, only 622 patients were exposed to tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib, or upadacitinib, with 361 included in the final analysis due to missing baseline data (later missing data were imputed). Treatment retention rates were similar among all four JAKi, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events and due to lack of efficacy were similar as well. There was no significant difference in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), or C-reactive protein after 6 months between the four JAKi. Baricitinib had higher rates of CDAI low disease activity and remission at 6 months when used as a first-line biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARD. However, this and other specific findings related to individual JAKi may be affected by the relatively small number of patients included and exposed to each JAKi, and the relatively short duration of follow-up (in terms of drug discontinuation), thus countering the initial premise for the study.

Finally, another important real-world study, by Tageldin and colleagues, looked at tapering therapy in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Tapering (RHEUMTAP) cohort of patients with RA in sustained disease remission or low disease activity for at least 6 months on stable medications (infused bDMARD excluded). This 2-year prospective cohort included reducing frequency, reducing dose, and stopping medication according to predefined regimens. Of 131 patients, 40% underwent tapering, with more flares in the taper group over > 400 days of follow-up; flare rates were much higher in those tapering b/tsDMARD compared with csDMARD. Though limited by small numbers in examining the three different tapering groups, this real-world study provides an important counterpoint to the notion that medication can be tapered easily in RA patients doing well. A more stringent definition or longer duration of disease remission may also affect this finding.

The association of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with increased cancer risk compared with the general population has long been known, though the balance between risk related to RA disease activity compared with risk related to immunosuppressive medication has not been clear. This increased risk is seen primarily with lymphoma and lung cancer, and prior research has suggested a risk with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), such as anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Beydon and colleagues performed a cohort study using a French national claims database; they looked at patients seen for at least 1 year with treatment for RA and compared the incidence of cancer by type. In over 257,000 patients, nearly 24,000 cancer cases were found. The most common cancers were breast, colon, lung, and prostate. All-cancer risk was > 1.2 (standardized incidence ratio) compared with those without cancer, higher in men compared with women, and the risk was increased in patients who received conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, and rituximab, but not interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Given that the risk was most highly associated with exposure to rituximab, this may show a type of bias rendering the study difficult to interpret, as rituximab is considered "safe" in cancer, and treatments such as csDMARD may have been given because they were not contraindicated in patients with cancer. This renders the study’s other results, such as lower risk with JAKi or higher risk with abatacept, hard to interpret.

Hayashi and colleagues performed a "real-world" comparative study using data from the Japanese observational ANSWER registry database to compare effectiveness of different JAKi over 6 months, a question of high interest given the availability of several JAKi currently. Within the database of over 11,000 participants, only 622 patients were exposed to tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib, or upadacitinib, with 361 included in the final analysis due to missing baseline data (later missing data were imputed). Treatment retention rates were similar among all four JAKi, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events and due to lack of efficacy were similar as well. There was no significant difference in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), or C-reactive protein after 6 months between the four JAKi. Baricitinib had higher rates of CDAI low disease activity and remission at 6 months when used as a first-line biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARD. However, this and other specific findings related to individual JAKi may be affected by the relatively small number of patients included and exposed to each JAKi, and the relatively short duration of follow-up (in terms of drug discontinuation), thus countering the initial premise for the study.

Finally, another important real-world study, by Tageldin and colleagues, looked at tapering therapy in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Tapering (RHEUMTAP) cohort of patients with RA in sustained disease remission or low disease activity for at least 6 months on stable medications (infused bDMARD excluded). This 2-year prospective cohort included reducing frequency, reducing dose, and stopping medication according to predefined regimens. Of 131 patients, 40% underwent tapering, with more flares in the taper group over > 400 days of follow-up; flare rates were much higher in those tapering b/tsDMARD compared with csDMARD. Though limited by small numbers in examining the three different tapering groups, this real-world study provides an important counterpoint to the notion that medication can be tapered easily in RA patients doing well. A more stringent definition or longer duration of disease remission may also affect this finding.

Depression is one of the most common comorbidities associated with migraine. Major depressive disorder is both a risk factor for chronic migraine and a condition that one is more likely to develop after being diagnosed with chronic migraine. The study by de Vries Lentsch and colleagues investigated the use of two of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments — erenumab and fremanezumab — compared with a control group of patients with chronic migraine, with an eye on outcomes to measure depression. Of note, reduction in headache frequency (defined as reduction in monthly migraine days) was also investigated as an independent variable.

This was a single-center study performed at the University of Leiden Headache Center. It was not a randomized trial, but all patients were followed with an e-diary and Day 0 vs Day 90 questionnaires that tracked their headache frequency and severity as well as a number of metrics related to depression. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was used to follow headache-related impact and disability, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure the degree of stressful situations the patient was experiencing.

The baseline depression scales between the three groups were 70%, 60%, and 66%, respectively; there were similar baseline levels of migraine frequency and disability as well. Both intervention groups showed a significant decrease in the symptoms of depression, and having a greater level of depression was negatively associated with reduction in monthly migraine days after 3 months. Of note, logistic-regression analysis determined that the reduction in depressive symptoms was independent of the reduction in migraine frequency.

Nearly all headache care providers are faced with challenging situations on a daily basis; often this is due to the comorbidity of mood disorders and high-frequency migraine. A traditional approach has been to provide the patient with a migraine preventive medication in the antidepressant family, such as a tricyclic antidepressant or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Although these can be helpful, they are less specific for migraine prevention. Many patients are also already taking antidepressant medications, and the addition of a migraine-preventive antidepressant would be contraindicated. This study broadens the possibilities for prevention in these complicated patients and shows that there is benefit in both migraine-related outcomes and markers for depression when using CGRP-based therapy.

The way headache medicine is practiced changed dramatically in 2018 with the advent of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments for migraine. These medications have allowed us to target migraine specifically, whereas all of the preventive medications for migraine prior to 2018 were developed for other conditions and only secondarily helped migraine. These include the antidepressant, antihypertensive, and antiepileptic classes of medications, as well as onabotulinum toxin A, which, although approved for migraine, is not targeting a migraine-specific factor. Moskatel and colleagues sought to better understand the changing patterns of prescribing the nonspecific, or "traditional," migraine preventive medications in light of the advent of CGRP treatment.

This was a retrospective cohort study using aggregated data from the Stanford headache center. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of the 10 most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinum toxin A, or any of the four CGRP mAb, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from the clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

The Stanford (STARR) database was filtered, searching for patients living in a California ZIP code with a diagnosis of chronic migraine who were followed from 2015 to 2021. The 10 most common non-CGRP preventive medications were amitriptyline/nortriptyline, valproate, duloxetine, gabapentin, memantine, propranolol, venlafaxine, verapamil, and onabotulinumtoxinA.

Erenumab was noted to initially be the most prescribed CGRP monoclonal antibody medication, but this was overtaken by galcanezumab after the second quarter of 2020 and throughout 2021. There is a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of patients receiving any of the non-CGRP preventive medications since 2018. The most significant decreases were in the tricyclic antidepressant class, as well as valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and onabotulinum toxin A. There was no statistically significant change in venlafaxine or gabapentin prescriptions.

This study highlights the changing face of headache medicine, and having a new class of migraine-specific treatment has significantly affected prescribing patterns. Although there is a statistically significant decrease in the prescribing of these non–migraine-specific preventive medications, they are still often recommended due to step-therapy regulations from insurance formularies, or as part of a polypharmacy regimen that may be more beneficial for a patient. These medications do improve patient outcomes and will remain a mainstay in migraine treatment.

Nearly all patients with migraine are recommended an acute medication to treat migraine attacks abortively; some patients are also recommended preventive therapies if migraine frequency significantly affects their quality of life. The American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for prevention recommend the initiation of a preventive medication at a frequency of 4-5 headache days per month or approximately 1 per week. Lipton and colleagues sought to determine whether there were any efficacy concerns in combining a CGRP mAb for prevention with ubrogepant, an oral CGRP antagonist, for acute treatment.

This was a prospective, open-level observational study assessing pain relief, return to normal function, and treatment satisfaction with patients given 50 or 100 mg of ubrogepant while concomitantly being given a seizure or mAb medication. Patients were allowed to be taking onabotulinumtoxinA as well as a CGRP mAb. The patients in this study were asked to track their headache symptoms using the Migraine Buddy e-diary. Meaningful pain relief was defined as a rating of migraine-related pain with one of the following choices 4 hours after taking the medication: no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or severe pain. Return to normal function was defined as whether the patient determined they were able to function normally relative to their baseline at specific times post intervention. This was based on a functional disability scale. Treatment satisfaction was determined on the basis of a seven-point rating scale for how satisfied the patient felt with the medication at the end of the trial period.

A total of 245 participants provided at least 30 days of data, with 44.5% of the patients taking erenumab, 35.1% taking galcanezumab, 18.0% taking fremanezumab, and 2.9% taking eptinezumab. Meaningful pain relief was achieved by 61.6% of patients at 2 hours and 80.4% of patients at 4 hours post dose for both the 50-mg and 100-mg dose of ubrogepant. Return to normal function was achieved by 34.7% of patients at 2 hours and 50.5% at 4 hours post dose as well. Patients reported a 72.7% satisfaction level with the medication.

When CGRP acute medications were first approved, there was concern about the use of a mAb together with an oral antagonist. It was thought that CGRP medications would be associated with fewer benefits than when these medications were used alone, due to the belief that only a specific amount of CGRP could be blocked at any specific time. This trial shows that the efficacy of CGRP acute medications is not affected by concomitant use of mAb. Many patients who respond well to CGRP mAb will benefit significantly from the additional abortive use of oral antagonists.

Depression is one of the most common comorbidities associated with migraine. Major depressive disorder is both a risk factor for chronic migraine and a condition that one is more likely to develop after being diagnosed with chronic migraine. The study by de Vries Lentsch and colleagues investigated the use of two of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments — erenumab and fremanezumab — compared with a control group of patients with chronic migraine, with an eye on outcomes to measure depression. Of note, reduction in headache frequency (defined as reduction in monthly migraine days) was also investigated as an independent variable.

This was a single-center study performed at the University of Leiden Headache Center. It was not a randomized trial, but all patients were followed with an e-diary and Day 0 vs Day 90 questionnaires that tracked their headache frequency and severity as well as a number of metrics related to depression. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was used to follow headache-related impact and disability, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure the degree of stressful situations the patient was experiencing.

The baseline depression scales between the three groups were 70%, 60%, and 66%, respectively; there were similar baseline levels of migraine frequency and disability as well. Both intervention groups showed a significant decrease in the symptoms of depression, and having a greater level of depression was negatively associated with reduction in monthly migraine days after 3 months. Of note, logistic-regression analysis determined that the reduction in depressive symptoms was independent of the reduction in migraine frequency.

Nearly all headache care providers are faced with challenging situations on a daily basis; often this is due to the comorbidity of mood disorders and high-frequency migraine. A traditional approach has been to provide the patient with a migraine preventive medication in the antidepressant family, such as a tricyclic antidepressant or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Although these can be helpful, they are less specific for migraine prevention. Many patients are also already taking antidepressant medications, and the addition of a migraine-preventive antidepressant would be contraindicated. This study broadens the possibilities for prevention in these complicated patients and shows that there is benefit in both migraine-related outcomes and markers for depression when using CGRP-based therapy.

The way headache medicine is practiced changed dramatically in 2018 with the advent of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments for migraine. These medications have allowed us to target migraine specifically, whereas all of the preventive medications for migraine prior to 2018 were developed for other conditions and only secondarily helped migraine. These include the antidepressant, antihypertensive, and antiepileptic classes of medications, as well as onabotulinum toxin A, which, although approved for migraine, is not targeting a migraine-specific factor. Moskatel and colleagues sought to better understand the changing patterns of prescribing the nonspecific, or "traditional," migraine preventive medications in light of the advent of CGRP treatment.

This was a retrospective cohort study using aggregated data from the Stanford headache center. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of the 10 most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinum toxin A, or any of the four CGRP mAb, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from the clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

The Stanford (STARR) database was filtered, searching for patients living in a California ZIP code with a diagnosis of chronic migraine who were followed from 2015 to 2021. The 10 most common non-CGRP preventive medications were amitriptyline/nortriptyline, valproate, duloxetine, gabapentin, memantine, propranolol, venlafaxine, verapamil, and onabotulinumtoxinA.

Erenumab was noted to initially be the most prescribed CGRP monoclonal antibody medication, but this was overtaken by galcanezumab after the second quarter of 2020 and throughout 2021. There is a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of patients receiving any of the non-CGRP preventive medications since 2018. The most significant decreases were in the tricyclic antidepressant class, as well as valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and onabotulinum toxin A. There was no statistically significant change in venlafaxine or gabapentin prescriptions.

This study highlights the changing face of headache medicine, and having a new class of migraine-specific treatment has significantly affected prescribing patterns. Although there is a statistically significant decrease in the prescribing of these non–migraine-specific preventive medications, they are still often recommended due to step-therapy regulations from insurance formularies, or as part of a polypharmacy regimen that may be more beneficial for a patient. These medications do improve patient outcomes and will remain a mainstay in migraine treatment.

Nearly all patients with migraine are recommended an acute medication to treat migraine attacks abortively; some patients are also recommended preventive therapies if migraine frequency significantly affects their quality of life. The American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for prevention recommend the initiation of a preventive medication at a frequency of 4-5 headache days per month or approximately 1 per week. Lipton and colleagues sought to determine whether there were any efficacy concerns in combining a CGRP mAb for prevention with ubrogepant, an oral CGRP antagonist, for acute treatment.

This was a prospective, open-level observational study assessing pain relief, return to normal function, and treatment satisfaction with patients given 50 or 100 mg of ubrogepant while concomitantly being given a seizure or mAb medication. Patients were allowed to be taking onabotulinumtoxinA as well as a CGRP mAb. The patients in this study were asked to track their headache symptoms using the Migraine Buddy e-diary. Meaningful pain relief was defined as a rating of migraine-related pain with one of the following choices 4 hours after taking the medication: no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or severe pain. Return to normal function was defined as whether the patient determined they were able to function normally relative to their baseline at specific times post intervention. This was based on a functional disability scale. Treatment satisfaction was determined on the basis of a seven-point rating scale for how satisfied the patient felt with the medication at the end of the trial period.

A total of 245 participants provided at least 30 days of data, with 44.5% of the patients taking erenumab, 35.1% taking galcanezumab, 18.0% taking fremanezumab, and 2.9% taking eptinezumab. Meaningful pain relief was achieved by 61.6% of patients at 2 hours and 80.4% of patients at 4 hours post dose for both the 50-mg and 100-mg dose of ubrogepant. Return to normal function was achieved by 34.7% of patients at 2 hours and 50.5% at 4 hours post dose as well. Patients reported a 72.7% satisfaction level with the medication.

When CGRP acute medications were first approved, there was concern about the use of a mAb together with an oral antagonist. It was thought that CGRP medications would be associated with fewer benefits than when these medications were used alone, due to the belief that only a specific amount of CGRP could be blocked at any specific time. This trial shows that the efficacy of CGRP acute medications is not affected by concomitant use of mAb. Many patients who respond well to CGRP mAb will benefit significantly from the additional abortive use of oral antagonists.

Depression is one of the most common comorbidities associated with migraine. Major depressive disorder is both a risk factor for chronic migraine and a condition that one is more likely to develop after being diagnosed with chronic migraine. The study by de Vries Lentsch and colleagues investigated the use of two of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments — erenumab and fremanezumab — compared with a control group of patients with chronic migraine, with an eye on outcomes to measure depression. Of note, reduction in headache frequency (defined as reduction in monthly migraine days) was also investigated as an independent variable.

This was a single-center study performed at the University of Leiden Headache Center. It was not a randomized trial, but all patients were followed with an e-diary and Day 0 vs Day 90 questionnaires that tracked their headache frequency and severity as well as a number of metrics related to depression. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was used to follow headache-related impact and disability, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure the degree of stressful situations the patient was experiencing.

The baseline depression scales between the three groups were 70%, 60%, and 66%, respectively; there were similar baseline levels of migraine frequency and disability as well. Both intervention groups showed a significant decrease in the symptoms of depression, and having a greater level of depression was negatively associated with reduction in monthly migraine days after 3 months. Of note, logistic-regression analysis determined that the reduction in depressive symptoms was independent of the reduction in migraine frequency.

Nearly all headache care providers are faced with challenging situations on a daily basis; often this is due to the comorbidity of mood disorders and high-frequency migraine. A traditional approach has been to provide the patient with a migraine preventive medication in the antidepressant family, such as a tricyclic antidepressant or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Although these can be helpful, they are less specific for migraine prevention. Many patients are also already taking antidepressant medications, and the addition of a migraine-preventive antidepressant would be contraindicated. This study broadens the possibilities for prevention in these complicated patients and shows that there is benefit in both migraine-related outcomes and markers for depression when using CGRP-based therapy.

The way headache medicine is practiced changed dramatically in 2018 with the advent of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments for migraine. These medications have allowed us to target migraine specifically, whereas all of the preventive medications for migraine prior to 2018 were developed for other conditions and only secondarily helped migraine. These include the antidepressant, antihypertensive, and antiepileptic classes of medications, as well as onabotulinum toxin A, which, although approved for migraine, is not targeting a migraine-specific factor. Moskatel and colleagues sought to better understand the changing patterns of prescribing the nonspecific, or "traditional," migraine preventive medications in light of the advent of CGRP treatment.

This was a retrospective cohort study using aggregated data from the Stanford headache center. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of the 10 most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinum toxin A, or any of the four CGRP mAb, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from the clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

The Stanford (STARR) database was filtered, searching for patients living in a California ZIP code with a diagnosis of chronic migraine who were followed from 2015 to 2021. The 10 most common non-CGRP preventive medications were amitriptyline/nortriptyline, valproate, duloxetine, gabapentin, memantine, propranolol, venlafaxine, verapamil, and onabotulinumtoxinA.

Erenumab was noted to initially be the most prescribed CGRP monoclonal antibody medication, but this was overtaken by galcanezumab after the second quarter of 2020 and throughout 2021. There is a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of patients receiving any of the non-CGRP preventive medications since 2018. The most significant decreases were in the tricyclic antidepressant class, as well as valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and onabotulinum toxin A. There was no statistically significant change in venlafaxine or gabapentin prescriptions.

This study highlights the changing face of headache medicine, and having a new class of migraine-specific treatment has significantly affected prescribing patterns. Although there is a statistically significant decrease in the prescribing of these non–migraine-specific preventive medications, they are still often recommended due to step-therapy regulations from insurance formularies, or as part of a polypharmacy regimen that may be more beneficial for a patient. These medications do improve patient outcomes and will remain a mainstay in migraine treatment.

Nearly all patients with migraine are recommended an acute medication to treat migraine attacks abortively; some patients are also recommended preventive therapies if migraine frequency significantly affects their quality of life. The American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for prevention recommend the initiation of a preventive medication at a frequency of 4-5 headache days per month or approximately 1 per week. Lipton and colleagues sought to determine whether there were any efficacy concerns in combining a CGRP mAb for prevention with ubrogepant, an oral CGRP antagonist, for acute treatment.

This was a prospective, open-level observational study assessing pain relief, return to normal function, and treatment satisfaction with patients given 50 or 100 mg of ubrogepant while concomitantly being given a seizure or mAb medication. Patients were allowed to be taking onabotulinumtoxinA as well as a CGRP mAb. The patients in this study were asked to track their headache symptoms using the Migraine Buddy e-diary. Meaningful pain relief was defined as a rating of migraine-related pain with one of the following choices 4 hours after taking the medication: no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or severe pain. Return to normal function was defined as whether the patient determined they were able to function normally relative to their baseline at specific times post intervention. This was based on a functional disability scale. Treatment satisfaction was determined on the basis of a seven-point rating scale for how satisfied the patient felt with the medication at the end of the trial period.

A total of 245 participants provided at least 30 days of data, with 44.5% of the patients taking erenumab, 35.1% taking galcanezumab, 18.0% taking fremanezumab, and 2.9% taking eptinezumab. Meaningful pain relief was achieved by 61.6% of patients at 2 hours and 80.4% of patients at 4 hours post dose for both the 50-mg and 100-mg dose of ubrogepant. Return to normal function was achieved by 34.7% of patients at 2 hours and 50.5% at 4 hours post dose as well. Patients reported a 72.7% satisfaction level with the medication.

When CGRP acute medications were first approved, there was concern about the use of a mAb together with an oral antagonist. It was thought that CGRP medications would be associated with fewer benefits than when these medications were used alone, due to the belief that only a specific amount of CGRP could be blocked at any specific time. This trial shows that the efficacy of CGRP acute medications is not affected by concomitant use of mAb. Many patients who respond well to CGRP mAb will benefit significantly from the additional abortive use of oral antagonists.

The quadruplet combination of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab with a backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaKRd) showed significant improvement in outcomes of measurable residual disease (MRD) in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

“This [research] builds on our experience that four-drug combinations with a monoclonal antibody, proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug and steroids are superior to three-drug combinations,” Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview on the study.

“It also demonstrates the value of CD38 antibodies, and specifically isatuximab, in the frontline setting,” said Dr. Mikhael, professor at the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), City of Hope Cancer Center in Goodyear, Ariz.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The current standard of care for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed MM consists of the quadruple combination of a CD38 monoclonal antibody, an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and a glucocorticoid, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT).

Isatuximab already has approval in combination with the regimen of carfilzomib and dexamethasone (KRd) in the treatment of relapsed or refractory MM patients who have received prior lines of therapy.

To investigate the efficacy and safety of addition of isatuximab in the setting of transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed MM patients, first author Francesca Gay, MD, PhD, of the Division of Hematology, Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Italy, and colleagues conducted the multisite, phase-3 Iskia trial, enrolling 302 transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM patients.

The patients were randomized to groups of 151 each to treatment either with IsaKRd or KRd alone. The treatment regimen for KRd included four cycles in induction including weekly carfilzomib at 56 mg on day 1, 8 and 15, lenalidomide 25 mg at day 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg weekly, and the IsaKRd group included four 28-day cycles of isatuximab 10 mg/kg IV days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in cycle 1, followed by 10 mg/kg days 1, 15 in cycles 2-4.

The induction was followed by stem cell mobilization and collection and high dose chemotherapy, followed by four cycles of full-dose consolidation at the same doses and schedule as induction, followed by a light consolidation phase of 12 28-day cycles of reduced dose KRd.

Patients had a median age of 61 and 60 in the isatuximab versus KRd group, respectively, and characteristics were similar between the two arms.

With the current follow-up of a mean of 21 months, the primary endpoint was met, with the intention-to-treat analysis showing a rate of post-consolidation MRD negativity, as assessed with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) cut-off of 10^-5, of 77% with isatuximab versus 67% with KRd alone (OR 1.67; P = .049).

With an NGS cut-off of 10^-6, the respective rates were 67% vs. 48% (OR 2.29; P < .001).

“This difference in MRD negativity in the depth of response was seen despite the responses analyzed according to the conventional criteria being comparable in the two arms, with more than 90% of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and more than 70% achieving at least a complete response,” Dr. Gay noted.

For the key secondary endpoint of MRD negativity over time, the rates were also significantly higher with IsaKRd vs. KRd at post-induction (10^-5 cut-off, 45% vs. 26%, OR 2.34; P < .001; 10^-6 cut-off, 27% vs. 14%, OR 2.36, P = .004).

IsaKRd also had greater MRD negativity post-ASCT (10^-5 cutoff 64% vs. 49%; P = .006; 10^-6 cutoff, 52% vs. 27%, P < .001) and post-consolidation (10^-5 cutoff, 77% vs. 67%; P = .049 and 10^-6 cutoff, 67% vs. 48%, P < .001).

The increase in the MRD negativity in the IsaKRd group was observed in all subgroups of patients analyzed at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cut-offs.

The improved post-consolidation rate of MRD negativity with IsaKRd was also observed among patients based on all levels of cytogenetic risk, which was not the case in the KRd alone arm, which showed a reduction in MRD negativity among very high-risk patients, Dr. Gay observed.

The study’s other key secondary endpoint of progression-free survival will be presented in the future, when longer-term outcomes are available.

As of the current follow-up, 17% of patients in the IsaKRd group had discontinued the study treatment versus 10% with KRd, with the leading cause of adverse events for 6% and 5%, respectively.

At least one hematologic adverse event occurred in 55% of patients treated with IsaKRd and 44% in the KRd alone group, with the most prominent grade 3-4 adverse events occurring more commonly with IsaKRd being neutropenia (36% vs. 22%) and thrombocytopenia (15% vs. 17%).

Non-hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the IsaKRd group versus 37% in KRd only, which included infections (15% vs. 11%), and gastrointestinal (7% vs. 5%), vascular (5% vs. 10%) and cardiac events (<1% vs. 3%).

Discontinuation for toxicity occurred in similar rates in both groups (6% in IsaKRd vs. 5% in KRd); with four treatment-related deaths occurring with IsaKRd (two COVID, one pneumonia, one pulmonary embolism) and one with KRd (septic shock).

“Treatment was tolerable with a toxicity profile that was similar to that in previous reports,” Dr. Gay said.

“In the context of these highly effective regimens that produce a high rate of response, the 10-6 MRD cutoff might be more informative than other result categories,” she added.

Longer follow-up will provide more insights in survival endpoints, and “the trial can potentially offer the opportunity to explore correlations between depth of MRD negativity and survival endpoints,” Dr. Gay noted.

Further commenting on the study, Irene Ghobrial, MD, of Medical Oncology, with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said the results are encouraging.

“We’re seeing two phase three trials now showing us that indeed a CD38 antibody in addition to our triplet standards of care are making a huge difference in MRD response,” she said in an interview.

“So, I think the main message here is that the four-drug regimen is the way to go from now on in multiple myeloma.”

The study received funding from Sanofi and Amgen. Dr. Gay disclosed relationships with AbbVie; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene; Sanofi; Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Pfizer; Oncopeptides; Takeda; Janssen; and Amgen. Dr. Mikhael reported ties with Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi and Takeda.

The quadruplet combination of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab with a backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaKRd) showed significant improvement in outcomes of measurable residual disease (MRD) in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

“This [research] builds on our experience that four-drug combinations with a monoclonal antibody, proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug and steroids are superior to three-drug combinations,” Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview on the study.

“It also demonstrates the value of CD38 antibodies, and specifically isatuximab, in the frontline setting,” said Dr. Mikhael, professor at the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), City of Hope Cancer Center in Goodyear, Ariz.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The current standard of care for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed MM consists of the quadruple combination of a CD38 monoclonal antibody, an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and a glucocorticoid, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT).

Isatuximab already has approval in combination with the regimen of carfilzomib and dexamethasone (KRd) in the treatment of relapsed or refractory MM patients who have received prior lines of therapy.

To investigate the efficacy and safety of addition of isatuximab in the setting of transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed MM patients, first author Francesca Gay, MD, PhD, of the Division of Hematology, Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Italy, and colleagues conducted the multisite, phase-3 Iskia trial, enrolling 302 transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM patients.

The patients were randomized to groups of 151 each to treatment either with IsaKRd or KRd alone. The treatment regimen for KRd included four cycles in induction including weekly carfilzomib at 56 mg on day 1, 8 and 15, lenalidomide 25 mg at day 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg weekly, and the IsaKRd group included four 28-day cycles of isatuximab 10 mg/kg IV days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in cycle 1, followed by 10 mg/kg days 1, 15 in cycles 2-4.

The induction was followed by stem cell mobilization and collection and high dose chemotherapy, followed by four cycles of full-dose consolidation at the same doses and schedule as induction, followed by a light consolidation phase of 12 28-day cycles of reduced dose KRd.

Patients had a median age of 61 and 60 in the isatuximab versus KRd group, respectively, and characteristics were similar between the two arms.

With the current follow-up of a mean of 21 months, the primary endpoint was met, with the intention-to-treat analysis showing a rate of post-consolidation MRD negativity, as assessed with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) cut-off of 10^-5, of 77% with isatuximab versus 67% with KRd alone (OR 1.67; P = .049).

With an NGS cut-off of 10^-6, the respective rates were 67% vs. 48% (OR 2.29; P < .001).

“This difference in MRD negativity in the depth of response was seen despite the responses analyzed according to the conventional criteria being comparable in the two arms, with more than 90% of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and more than 70% achieving at least a complete response,” Dr. Gay noted.

For the key secondary endpoint of MRD negativity over time, the rates were also significantly higher with IsaKRd vs. KRd at post-induction (10^-5 cut-off, 45% vs. 26%, OR 2.34; P < .001; 10^-6 cut-off, 27% vs. 14%, OR 2.36, P = .004).

IsaKRd also had greater MRD negativity post-ASCT (10^-5 cutoff 64% vs. 49%; P = .006; 10^-6 cutoff, 52% vs. 27%, P < .001) and post-consolidation (10^-5 cutoff, 77% vs. 67%; P = .049 and 10^-6 cutoff, 67% vs. 48%, P < .001).

The increase in the MRD negativity in the IsaKRd group was observed in all subgroups of patients analyzed at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cut-offs.

The improved post-consolidation rate of MRD negativity with IsaKRd was also observed among patients based on all levels of cytogenetic risk, which was not the case in the KRd alone arm, which showed a reduction in MRD negativity among very high-risk patients, Dr. Gay observed.

The study’s other key secondary endpoint of progression-free survival will be presented in the future, when longer-term outcomes are available.

As of the current follow-up, 17% of patients in the IsaKRd group had discontinued the study treatment versus 10% with KRd, with the leading cause of adverse events for 6% and 5%, respectively.

At least one hematologic adverse event occurred in 55% of patients treated with IsaKRd and 44% in the KRd alone group, with the most prominent grade 3-4 adverse events occurring more commonly with IsaKRd being neutropenia (36% vs. 22%) and thrombocytopenia (15% vs. 17%).

Non-hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the IsaKRd group versus 37% in KRd only, which included infections (15% vs. 11%), and gastrointestinal (7% vs. 5%), vascular (5% vs. 10%) and cardiac events (<1% vs. 3%).

Discontinuation for toxicity occurred in similar rates in both groups (6% in IsaKRd vs. 5% in KRd); with four treatment-related deaths occurring with IsaKRd (two COVID, one pneumonia, one pulmonary embolism) and one with KRd (septic shock).

“Treatment was tolerable with a toxicity profile that was similar to that in previous reports,” Dr. Gay said.

“In the context of these highly effective regimens that produce a high rate of response, the 10-6 MRD cutoff might be more informative than other result categories,” she added.

Longer follow-up will provide more insights in survival endpoints, and “the trial can potentially offer the opportunity to explore correlations between depth of MRD negativity and survival endpoints,” Dr. Gay noted.

Further commenting on the study, Irene Ghobrial, MD, of Medical Oncology, with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said the results are encouraging.

“We’re seeing two phase three trials now showing us that indeed a CD38 antibody in addition to our triplet standards of care are making a huge difference in MRD response,” she said in an interview.

“So, I think the main message here is that the four-drug regimen is the way to go from now on in multiple myeloma.”

The study received funding from Sanofi and Amgen. Dr. Gay disclosed relationships with AbbVie; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene; Sanofi; Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Pfizer; Oncopeptides; Takeda; Janssen; and Amgen. Dr. Mikhael reported ties with Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi and Takeda.

The quadruplet combination of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab with a backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaKRd) showed significant improvement in outcomes of measurable residual disease (MRD) in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

“This [research] builds on our experience that four-drug combinations with a monoclonal antibody, proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug and steroids are superior to three-drug combinations,” Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview on the study.

“It also demonstrates the value of CD38 antibodies, and specifically isatuximab, in the frontline setting,” said Dr. Mikhael, professor at the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), City of Hope Cancer Center in Goodyear, Ariz.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The current standard of care for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed MM consists of the quadruple combination of a CD38 monoclonal antibody, an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and a glucocorticoid, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT).

Isatuximab already has approval in combination with the regimen of carfilzomib and dexamethasone (KRd) in the treatment of relapsed or refractory MM patients who have received prior lines of therapy.

To investigate the efficacy and safety of addition of isatuximab in the setting of transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed MM patients, first author Francesca Gay, MD, PhD, of the Division of Hematology, Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Italy, and colleagues conducted the multisite, phase-3 Iskia trial, enrolling 302 transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM patients.

The patients were randomized to groups of 151 each to treatment either with IsaKRd or KRd alone. The treatment regimen for KRd included four cycles in induction including weekly carfilzomib at 56 mg on day 1, 8 and 15, lenalidomide 25 mg at day 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg weekly, and the IsaKRd group included four 28-day cycles of isatuximab 10 mg/kg IV days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in cycle 1, followed by 10 mg/kg days 1, 15 in cycles 2-4.

The induction was followed by stem cell mobilization and collection and high dose chemotherapy, followed by four cycles of full-dose consolidation at the same doses and schedule as induction, followed by a light consolidation phase of 12 28-day cycles of reduced dose KRd.

Patients had a median age of 61 and 60 in the isatuximab versus KRd group, respectively, and characteristics were similar between the two arms.

With the current follow-up of a mean of 21 months, the primary endpoint was met, with the intention-to-treat analysis showing a rate of post-consolidation MRD negativity, as assessed with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) cut-off of 10^-5, of 77% with isatuximab versus 67% with KRd alone (OR 1.67; P = .049).

With an NGS cut-off of 10^-6, the respective rates were 67% vs. 48% (OR 2.29; P < .001).

“This difference in MRD negativity in the depth of response was seen despite the responses analyzed according to the conventional criteria being comparable in the two arms, with more than 90% of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and more than 70% achieving at least a complete response,” Dr. Gay noted.

For the key secondary endpoint of MRD negativity over time, the rates were also significantly higher with IsaKRd vs. KRd at post-induction (10^-5 cut-off, 45% vs. 26%, OR 2.34; P < .001; 10^-6 cut-off, 27% vs. 14%, OR 2.36, P = .004).

IsaKRd also had greater MRD negativity post-ASCT (10^-5 cutoff 64% vs. 49%; P = .006; 10^-6 cutoff, 52% vs. 27%, P < .001) and post-consolidation (10^-5 cutoff, 77% vs. 67%; P = .049 and 10^-6 cutoff, 67% vs. 48%, P < .001).

The increase in the MRD negativity in the IsaKRd group was observed in all subgroups of patients analyzed at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cut-offs.

The improved post-consolidation rate of MRD negativity with IsaKRd was also observed among patients based on all levels of cytogenetic risk, which was not the case in the KRd alone arm, which showed a reduction in MRD negativity among very high-risk patients, Dr. Gay observed.

The study’s other key secondary endpoint of progression-free survival will be presented in the future, when longer-term outcomes are available.

As of the current follow-up, 17% of patients in the IsaKRd group had discontinued the study treatment versus 10% with KRd, with the leading cause of adverse events for 6% and 5%, respectively.

At least one hematologic adverse event occurred in 55% of patients treated with IsaKRd and 44% in the KRd alone group, with the most prominent grade 3-4 adverse events occurring more commonly with IsaKRd being neutropenia (36% vs. 22%) and thrombocytopenia (15% vs. 17%).

Non-hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the IsaKRd group versus 37% in KRd only, which included infections (15% vs. 11%), and gastrointestinal (7% vs. 5%), vascular (5% vs. 10%) and cardiac events (<1% vs. 3%).

Discontinuation for toxicity occurred in similar rates in both groups (6% in IsaKRd vs. 5% in KRd); with four treatment-related deaths occurring with IsaKRd (two COVID, one pneumonia, one pulmonary embolism) and one with KRd (septic shock).

“Treatment was tolerable with a toxicity profile that was similar to that in previous reports,” Dr. Gay said.

“In the context of these highly effective regimens that produce a high rate of response, the 10-6 MRD cutoff might be more informative than other result categories,” she added.

Longer follow-up will provide more insights in survival endpoints, and “the trial can potentially offer the opportunity to explore correlations between depth of MRD negativity and survival endpoints,” Dr. Gay noted.

Further commenting on the study, Irene Ghobrial, MD, of Medical Oncology, with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said the results are encouraging.

“We’re seeing two phase three trials now showing us that indeed a CD38 antibody in addition to our triplet standards of care are making a huge difference in MRD response,” she said in an interview.

“So, I think the main message here is that the four-drug regimen is the way to go from now on in multiple myeloma.”

The study received funding from Sanofi and Amgen. Dr. Gay disclosed relationships with AbbVie; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene; Sanofi; Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Pfizer; Oncopeptides; Takeda; Janssen; and Amgen. Dr. Mikhael reported ties with Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi and Takeda.

Following the initial presentation, the lesion was initially considered an acquired port wine stain and the child was referred for laser treatment. Upon reassessment during laser treatment a few months later, the lesion had progressed to hyper- and hypopigmented plaques with associated tissue sclerosis and bone atrophy on the mid forehead, nose, and scalp. Patches of alopecia and atrophy were observed on the frontal scalp. The diagnosis was revised to linear morphea en coup de sabre and the child was referred to pediatric rheumatology and commenced treatment with methotrexate and oral corticosteroids.

Linear morphea, a rare connective tissue disorder, primarily affects girls in the first 2 decades of life. Lesions can initially present in many ways. Usually, they present as hypo- or hyperpigmented patches, but may also present as lichenoid uncolored or pink plaques resembling lichen striatus. There may also be erythematous patches mimicking a capillary malformation, as seen in our patient. A recent article reviewing the progression of the lesions from erythematous patches to sclerosis suggests it occurs between 3 and 7 months of age. Subsequent stages manifest as significant atrophy, hypo- and hyperpigmentation, and in severe cases, bone atrophy and deformity, often causing substantial cosmetic disfigurement and functional impairment.

Pathophysiologically, linear morphea involves a complex interplay of immunologic, vascular, and fibrotic processes. While the initial triggers remain elusive, dysregulated immune responses leading to endothelial injury, subsequent activation of fibroblasts and myofibroblasts, and excessive collagen deposition are implicated. Angiogenic disturbances exacerbate tissue ischemia, perpetuating the fibrotic cascade. Alterations in cytokine signaling pathways, particularly TGF-beta and interleukin-6, play pivotal roles in promoting fibrosis and modulating the inflammatory milieu.

Diagnosis of linear morphea en coup de sabre relies on clinical examination, imaging (ultrasonography, MRI, CT scan), and skin biopsy for histopathological analysis. Imaging helps evaluate tissue involvement, while histology reveals characteristic dermal sclerosis, collagen deposition, and inflammation. Early-stage histology may show telangiectatic changes, complicating its differentiation from capillary malformation.

Treatment aims to mitigate symptoms, halt disease progression, and improve cosmesis and functionality. This involves a multidisciplinary approach with systemic medications, phototherapy, physical therapy, and surgical interventions in severe cases. Early identification is crucial for systemic treatments such as methotrexate and systemic corticosteroids to arrest disease progression. Other adjunctive therapies include topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phototherapy. Surgical procedures like tissue expansion or autologous fat grafting may address tissue atrophy and deformities.

Linear morphea en coup de sabre presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges because of its rarity and variable clinical course. Collaborative efforts among dermatologists, rheumatologists, radiologists, and surgeons are essential for accurate diagnosis, evaluation, and tailored management. Continued research into pathogenesis and novel therapeutic agents is pivotal to enhance understanding and improve outcomes for those affected by this enigmatic dermatologic condition.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

Gomez-Garcia LA et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 Mar;39(2):275-80.

Ng SS, Tay YK. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(5):277-80.

Nijhawan RI et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Apr;64(4):779-82.

Following the initial presentation, the lesion was initially considered an acquired port wine stain and the child was referred for laser treatment. Upon reassessment during laser treatment a few months later, the lesion had progressed to hyper- and hypopigmented plaques with associated tissue sclerosis and bone atrophy on the mid forehead, nose, and scalp. Patches of alopecia and atrophy were observed on the frontal scalp. The diagnosis was revised to linear morphea en coup de sabre and the child was referred to pediatric rheumatology and commenced treatment with methotrexate and oral corticosteroids.

Linear morphea, a rare connective tissue disorder, primarily affects girls in the first 2 decades of life. Lesions can initially present in many ways. Usually, they present as hypo- or hyperpigmented patches, but may also present as lichenoid uncolored or pink plaques resembling lichen striatus. There may also be erythematous patches mimicking a capillary malformation, as seen in our patient. A recent article reviewing the progression of the lesions from erythematous patches to sclerosis suggests it occurs between 3 and 7 months of age. Subsequent stages manifest as significant atrophy, hypo- and hyperpigmentation, and in severe cases, bone atrophy and deformity, often causing substantial cosmetic disfigurement and functional impairment.

Pathophysiologically, linear morphea involves a complex interplay of immunologic, vascular, and fibrotic processes. While the initial triggers remain elusive, dysregulated immune responses leading to endothelial injury, subsequent activation of fibroblasts and myofibroblasts, and excessive collagen deposition are implicated. Angiogenic disturbances exacerbate tissue ischemia, perpetuating the fibrotic cascade. Alterations in cytokine signaling pathways, particularly TGF-beta and interleukin-6, play pivotal roles in promoting fibrosis and modulating the inflammatory milieu.

Diagnosis of linear morphea en coup de sabre relies on clinical examination, imaging (ultrasonography, MRI, CT scan), and skin biopsy for histopathological analysis. Imaging helps evaluate tissue involvement, while histology reveals characteristic dermal sclerosis, collagen deposition, and inflammation. Early-stage histology may show telangiectatic changes, complicating its differentiation from capillary malformation.

Treatment aims to mitigate symptoms, halt disease progression, and improve cosmesis and functionality. This involves a multidisciplinary approach with systemic medications, phototherapy, physical therapy, and surgical interventions in severe cases. Early identification is crucial for systemic treatments such as methotrexate and systemic corticosteroids to arrest disease progression. Other adjunctive therapies include topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phototherapy. Surgical procedures like tissue expansion or autologous fat grafting may address tissue atrophy and deformities.

Linear morphea en coup de sabre presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges because of its rarity and variable clinical course. Collaborative efforts among dermatologists, rheumatologists, radiologists, and surgeons are essential for accurate diagnosis, evaluation, and tailored management. Continued research into pathogenesis and novel therapeutic agents is pivotal to enhance understanding and improve outcomes for those affected by this enigmatic dermatologic condition.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

Gomez-Garcia LA et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 Mar;39(2):275-80.

Ng SS, Tay YK. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(5):277-80.

Nijhawan RI et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Apr;64(4):779-82.

Following the initial presentation, the lesion was initially considered an acquired port wine stain and the child was referred for laser treatment. Upon reassessment during laser treatment a few months later, the lesion had progressed to hyper- and hypopigmented plaques with associated tissue sclerosis and bone atrophy on the mid forehead, nose, and scalp. Patches of alopecia and atrophy were observed on the frontal scalp. The diagnosis was revised to linear morphea en coup de sabre and the child was referred to pediatric rheumatology and commenced treatment with methotrexate and oral corticosteroids.

Linear morphea, a rare connective tissue disorder, primarily affects girls in the first 2 decades of life. Lesions can initially present in many ways. Usually, they present as hypo- or hyperpigmented patches, but may also present as lichenoid uncolored or pink plaques resembling lichen striatus. There may also be erythematous patches mimicking a capillary malformation, as seen in our patient. A recent article reviewing the progression of the lesions from erythematous patches to sclerosis suggests it occurs between 3 and 7 months of age. Subsequent stages manifest as significant atrophy, hypo- and hyperpigmentation, and in severe cases, bone atrophy and deformity, often causing substantial cosmetic disfigurement and functional impairment.

Pathophysiologically, linear morphea involves a complex interplay of immunologic, vascular, and fibrotic processes. While the initial triggers remain elusive, dysregulated immune responses leading to endothelial injury, subsequent activation of fibroblasts and myofibroblasts, and excessive collagen deposition are implicated. Angiogenic disturbances exacerbate tissue ischemia, perpetuating the fibrotic cascade. Alterations in cytokine signaling pathways, particularly TGF-beta and interleukin-6, play pivotal roles in promoting fibrosis and modulating the inflammatory milieu.

Diagnosis of linear morphea en coup de sabre relies on clinical examination, imaging (ultrasonography, MRI, CT scan), and skin biopsy for histopathological analysis. Imaging helps evaluate tissue involvement, while histology reveals characteristic dermal sclerosis, collagen deposition, and inflammation. Early-stage histology may show telangiectatic changes, complicating its differentiation from capillary malformation.

Treatment aims to mitigate symptoms, halt disease progression, and improve cosmesis and functionality. This involves a multidisciplinary approach with systemic medications, phototherapy, physical therapy, and surgical interventions in severe cases. Early identification is crucial for systemic treatments such as methotrexate and systemic corticosteroids to arrest disease progression. Other adjunctive therapies include topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phototherapy. Surgical procedures like tissue expansion or autologous fat grafting may address tissue atrophy and deformities.

Linear morphea en coup de sabre presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges because of its rarity and variable clinical course. Collaborative efforts among dermatologists, rheumatologists, radiologists, and surgeons are essential for accurate diagnosis, evaluation, and tailored management. Continued research into pathogenesis and novel therapeutic agents is pivotal to enhance understanding and improve outcomes for those affected by this enigmatic dermatologic condition.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

Gomez-Garcia LA et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 Mar;39(2):275-80.

Ng SS, Tay YK. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(5):277-80.

Nijhawan RI et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Apr;64(4):779-82.

TOPLINE:

Women with fibromyalgia who received low-dose naltrexone showed no significant improvement in pain at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo in a randomized trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomly assigned 99 women with fibromyalgia at a single center in Denmark to a daily dose of 6 mg of naltrexone or a placebo for 12 weeks.
• The primary outcome was within-group change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR); outcomes were measured at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
• Secondary outcomes included the global impact of FIQR total scores, as well as FIQR scores for tenderness, fatigue, , , anxiety, memory, stiffness, and physical function.

TAKEAWAY:

• The patients ranged in age from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 50.6 years, and all but one was White.
• At 12 weeks, the mean change in pain intensity was greater in the naltrexone group compared with the placebo group (−1.3 points vs −0.9 points, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
• Of the secondary outcomes, only memory problems related to fibromyalgia showed significant improvement with naltrexone compared with placebo (−0.93 vs −0.30; P = .004), although the significance was lost after adjusting for multiplicity.
• Adverse events were infrequent and similar between the groups; four of 49 patients in the naltrexone group and three of 50 in the placebo group discontinued their assigned treatments because of side effects, and no safety concerns appeared related to the 6-mg dose.

IN PRACTICE:

“At this time we recommend that off-label treatment of patients who have responded to low-dose naltrexone should not be terminated, but we recommend against initiating low-dose naltrexone for low-dose naltrexone-naive patients with fibromyalgia pending the results of additional adequately powered studies with distinctive inflammatory and autoantibody patient profiles,” Winfried Häuser, MD, of the Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany, and Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, MD, of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Karin Due Bruun, MD, of Odense University Hospital, Denmark. The full study and accompanying editorial were published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was only powered to detect a difference of 1.0 NRS points for pain intensity; other limitations include the homogenous population that prevents generalizability to other groups and the relatively short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen’s Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with fibromyalgia who received low-dose naltrexone showed no significant improvement in pain at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo in a randomized trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomly assigned 99 women with fibromyalgia at a single center in Denmark to a daily dose of 6 mg of naltrexone or a placebo for 12 weeks.
• The primary outcome was within-group change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR); outcomes were measured at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
• Secondary outcomes included the global impact of FIQR total scores, as well as FIQR scores for tenderness, fatigue, , , anxiety, memory, stiffness, and physical function.

TAKEAWAY:

• The patients ranged in age from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 50.6 years, and all but one was White.
• At 12 weeks, the mean change in pain intensity was greater in the naltrexone group compared with the placebo group (−1.3 points vs −0.9 points, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
• Of the secondary outcomes, only memory problems related to fibromyalgia showed significant improvement with naltrexone compared with placebo (−0.93 vs −0.30; P = .004), although the significance was lost after adjusting for multiplicity.
• Adverse events were infrequent and similar between the groups; four of 49 patients in the naltrexone group and three of 50 in the placebo group discontinued their assigned treatments because of side effects, and no safety concerns appeared related to the 6-mg dose.

IN PRACTICE:

“At this time we recommend that off-label treatment of patients who have responded to low-dose naltrexone should not be terminated, but we recommend against initiating low-dose naltrexone for low-dose naltrexone-naive patients with fibromyalgia pending the results of additional adequately powered studies with distinctive inflammatory and autoantibody patient profiles,” Winfried Häuser, MD, of the Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany, and Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, MD, of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Karin Due Bruun, MD, of Odense University Hospital, Denmark. The full study and accompanying editorial were published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was only powered to detect a difference of 1.0 NRS points for pain intensity; other limitations include the homogenous population that prevents generalizability to other groups and the relatively short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen’s Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with fibromyalgia who received low-dose naltrexone showed no significant improvement in pain at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo in a randomized trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomly assigned 99 women with fibromyalgia at a single center in Denmark to a daily dose of 6 mg of naltrexone or a placebo for 12 weeks.
• The primary outcome was within-group change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR); outcomes were measured at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
• Secondary outcomes included the global impact of FIQR total scores, as well as FIQR scores for tenderness, fatigue, , , anxiety, memory, stiffness, and physical function.

TAKEAWAY:

• The patients ranged in age from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 50.6 years, and all but one was White.
• At 12 weeks, the mean change in pain intensity was greater in the naltrexone group compared with the placebo group (−1.3 points vs −0.9 points, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
• Of the secondary outcomes, only memory problems related to fibromyalgia showed significant improvement with naltrexone compared with placebo (−0.93 vs −0.30; P = .004), although the significance was lost after adjusting for multiplicity.
• Adverse events were infrequent and similar between the groups; four of 49 patients in the naltrexone group and three of 50 in the placebo group discontinued their assigned treatments because of side effects, and no safety concerns appeared related to the 6-mg dose.

IN PRACTICE:

“At this time we recommend that off-label treatment of patients who have responded to low-dose naltrexone should not be terminated, but we recommend against initiating low-dose naltrexone for low-dose naltrexone-naive patients with fibromyalgia pending the results of additional adequately powered studies with distinctive inflammatory and autoantibody patient profiles,” Winfried Häuser, MD, of the Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany, and Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, MD, of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Karin Due Bruun, MD, of Odense University Hospital, Denmark. The full study and accompanying editorial were published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was only powered to detect a difference of 1.0 NRS points for pain intensity; other limitations include the homogenous population that prevents generalizability to other groups and the relatively short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen’s Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adult patients with type 2 diabetes and complex care needs receiving endocrinology treatment through telemedicine alone show worse glycemic outcomes compared with those receiving treatment either in-person or in mixed-care models.

The findings contrast with some previous studies showing similar glycemic outcomes with telemedicine care vs in-person care for type 2 diabetes management.

The study is believed to be the first to examine telemedicine care outcomes specifically in the endocrinology setting and based on clinical factors that affect treatment complexity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3778 adults with type 2 diabetes in a single, large integrated US health system who had received either telemedicine-only, in-person, or a mix of telemedicine and in-person care between May and October 2020.
• Patients were followed up through May 2022 and evaluated for estimated A1c change after 12 months within each treatment cohort, as well as factors associated with any changes.
• Of the patients, 1182 received telemedicine-only, 1049 received in-person, and 1547 received mixed care. Mean ages in the groups ranged from 57 to 63 years, and women made up between 55% and 63%.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over the 12-month evaluation period, patients receiving telemedicine-only care had no significant changes or improvements in adjusted A1c (−0.06; P = .55), those receiving in-person care had an improvement of 0.37% (P < .001), and those receiving mixed care had an improvement of 0.22% (P = .004).
• The glycemic outcome patterns were similar among patients with a baseline A1c of 8% or higher.
• Of those prescribed multiple daily injections vs no insulin, estimated changes in A1c were 0.25% higher for those receiving telemedicine than for those receiving in-person care (P = .03).
• No associations were observed between changes in A1c and comorbidities.
• Regarding reasons for the differences, the authors noted that “the strategies to support glycemic improvement that are available during in-person appointments have not consistently been translated to telemedicine care.”
• Essential components of telemedicine such as self-management education support may not currently be routinely available through telemedicine or at the point-of-care during telemedicine visits, they added.
• “In our prior work in this care setting, practitioners described how inferior availability of glucose data limited their ability to intensify treatment through telemedicine.”
• “Implementation of approaches to overcome these differences, such as team-based virtual care and technological tools to automate blood glucose data sharing, are needed to ensure all patients receive high-quality diabetes care regardless of care modality.”

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes who rely on telemedicine alone to access endocrinology care may require additional support to achieve glycemic goals,” the authors reported.

“Since some patients with barriers to in-person endocrinology care will continue to rely on telemedicine to access care, structured approaches to ensure routine delivery of high-quality team-based diabetes care are needed,” they asserted.

“Translation of successful strategies from clinical trials into routine telemedicine care, especially targeted toward adults with more complex diabetes, is critical to improve clinical outcomes for patients who rely on this care modality.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Margaret F. Zupa, MD, of the division of endocrinology and metabolism, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

It was published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

While demographic differences between the groups were included as covariates, the treatment modality cohorts were not balanced based on baseline characteristics that could be confounders.

Various factors, such as treatment complexity, glycemic control, and transportation barriers, could have affected whether patients received care with telemedicine; therefore, causal associations could not be established.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Pittsburgh Foundation, and Fraternal Order of the Eagles Charity Foundation Diabetes Fund. The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adult patients with type 2 diabetes and complex care needs receiving endocrinology treatment through telemedicine alone show worse glycemic outcomes compared with those receiving treatment either in-person or in mixed-care models.

The findings contrast with some previous studies showing similar glycemic outcomes with telemedicine care vs in-person care for type 2 diabetes management.

The study is believed to be the first to examine telemedicine care outcomes specifically in the endocrinology setting and based on clinical factors that affect treatment complexity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3778 adults with type 2 diabetes in a single, large integrated US health system who had received either telemedicine-only, in-person, or a mix of telemedicine and in-person care between May and October 2020.
• Patients were followed up through May 2022 and evaluated for estimated A1c change after 12 months within each treatment cohort, as well as factors associated with any changes.
• Of the patients, 1182 received telemedicine-only, 1049 received in-person, and 1547 received mixed care. Mean ages in the groups ranged from 57 to 63 years, and women made up between 55% and 63%.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over the 12-month evaluation period, patients receiving telemedicine-only care had no significant changes or improvements in adjusted A1c (−0.06; P = .55), those receiving in-person care had an improvement of 0.37% (P < .001), and those receiving mixed care had an improvement of 0.22% (P = .004).
• The glycemic outcome patterns were similar among patients with a baseline A1c of 8% or higher.
• Of those prescribed multiple daily injections vs no insulin, estimated changes in A1c were 0.25% higher for those receiving telemedicine than for those receiving in-person care (P = .03).
• No associations were observed between changes in A1c and comorbidities.
• Regarding reasons for the differences, the authors noted that “the strategies to support glycemic improvement that are available during in-person appointments have not consistently been translated to telemedicine care.”
• Essential components of telemedicine such as self-management education support may not currently be routinely available through telemedicine or at the point-of-care during telemedicine visits, they added.
• “In our prior work in this care setting, practitioners described how inferior availability of glucose data limited their ability to intensify treatment through telemedicine.”
• “Implementation of approaches to overcome these differences, such as team-based virtual care and technological tools to automate blood glucose data sharing, are needed to ensure all patients receive high-quality diabetes care regardless of care modality.”

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes who rely on telemedicine alone to access endocrinology care may require additional support to achieve glycemic goals,” the authors reported.

“Since some patients with barriers to in-person endocrinology care will continue to rely on telemedicine to access care, structured approaches to ensure routine delivery of high-quality team-based diabetes care are needed,” they asserted.

“Translation of successful strategies from clinical trials into routine telemedicine care, especially targeted toward adults with more complex diabetes, is critical to improve clinical outcomes for patients who rely on this care modality.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Margaret F. Zupa, MD, of the division of endocrinology and metabolism, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

It was published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

While demographic differences between the groups were included as covariates, the treatment modality cohorts were not balanced based on baseline characteristics that could be confounders.

Various factors, such as treatment complexity, glycemic control, and transportation barriers, could have affected whether patients received care with telemedicine; therefore, causal associations could not be established.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Pittsburgh Foundation, and Fraternal Order of the Eagles Charity Foundation Diabetes Fund. The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adult patients with type 2 diabetes and complex care needs receiving endocrinology treatment through telemedicine alone show worse glycemic outcomes compared with those receiving treatment either in-person or in mixed-care models.

The findings contrast with some previous studies showing similar glycemic outcomes with telemedicine care vs in-person care for type 2 diabetes management.

The study is believed to be the first to examine telemedicine care outcomes specifically in the endocrinology setting and based on clinical factors that affect treatment complexity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3778 adults with type 2 diabetes in a single, large integrated US health system who had received either telemedicine-only, in-person, or a mix of telemedicine and in-person care between May and October 2020.
• Patients were followed up through May 2022 and evaluated for estimated A1c change after 12 months within each treatment cohort, as well as factors associated with any changes.
• Of the patients, 1182 received telemedicine-only, 1049 received in-person, and 1547 received mixed care. Mean ages in the groups ranged from 57 to 63 years, and women made up between 55% and 63%.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over the 12-month evaluation period, patients receiving telemedicine-only care had no significant changes or improvements in adjusted A1c (−0.06; P = .55), those receiving in-person care had an improvement of 0.37% (P < .001), and those receiving mixed care had an improvement of 0.22% (P = .004).
• The glycemic outcome patterns were similar among patients with a baseline A1c of 8% or higher.
• Of those prescribed multiple daily injections vs no insulin, estimated changes in A1c were 0.25% higher for those receiving telemedicine than for those receiving in-person care (P = .03).
• No associations were observed between changes in A1c and comorbidities.
• Regarding reasons for the differences, the authors noted that “the strategies to support glycemic improvement that are available during in-person appointments have not consistently been translated to telemedicine care.”
• Essential components of telemedicine such as self-management education support may not currently be routinely available through telemedicine or at the point-of-care during telemedicine visits, they added.
• “In our prior work in this care setting, practitioners described how inferior availability of glucose data limited their ability to intensify treatment through telemedicine.”
• “Implementation of approaches to overcome these differences, such as team-based virtual care and technological tools to automate blood glucose data sharing, are needed to ensure all patients receive high-quality diabetes care regardless of care modality.”

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes who rely on telemedicine alone to access endocrinology care may require additional support to achieve glycemic goals,” the authors reported.

“Since some patients with barriers to in-person endocrinology care will continue to rely on telemedicine to access care, structured approaches to ensure routine delivery of high-quality team-based diabetes care are needed,” they asserted.

“Translation of successful strategies from clinical trials into routine telemedicine care, especially targeted toward adults with more complex diabetes, is critical to improve clinical outcomes for patients who rely on this care modality.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Margaret F. Zupa, MD, of the division of endocrinology and metabolism, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

It was published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

While demographic differences between the groups were included as covariates, the treatment modality cohorts were not balanced based on baseline characteristics that could be confounders.

Various factors, such as treatment complexity, glycemic control, and transportation barriers, could have affected whether patients received care with telemedicine; therefore, causal associations could not be established.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Pittsburgh Foundation, and Fraternal Order of the Eagles Charity Foundation Diabetes Fund. The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CASE A new patient office visit

A new patient is waiting for you in the exam room. You review the chart and see the sex demographic field is blank, and the patient’s name is Alex. As an ObGyn, most of your patients are female, but you have treated your patients’ partners for sexually transmitted infections. As you enter the room, you see 2 androgynously dressed individuals; you introduce yourself and ask,

“What brings you in today, and who is your friend?”

“This is my partner Charlie, and we are worried I have an STD.”
 

Estimates suggest that between 7% to 12% of the US population identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/non-binary, queer/questioning, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQI+).¹ If you practice in an urban area, the odds are quite high that you have encountered an LGBTQI+ person who openly identified as such; if you are in a rural area, you also likely have had an LGBTQI+ patient, but they may not have disclosed this about themselves.² Maybe you have had training in cultural relevance or are a member of this community and you feel confident in providing quality care to LGBTQI+ patients. Or maybe you think that, as a responsibly practicing health care clinician, you treat all patients the same, so whether or not you know their sexual orientation or gender identity does not impact the care you provide. As the proportion of US adults who identify as LGBTQI+ increases,¹ it becomes more important for health care clinicians to understand the challenges these patients face when trying to access health care. To start, let’s review the meaning of LGBTQI+, the history of the community, what it means to be culturally relevant or humble, and how to create a welcoming and safe practice environment.

LGBTQI+ terms and definitions

The first step in providing quality care to LGBTQI+ patients is to understand the terminology associated with sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.^3–5

Sexual orientation refers to whom a person is sexually attracted. The term straight/heterosexual suggests a person is sexually attracted to a person of the opposite gender. Lesbian or gay refers to those who are attracted to their same gender. Some people use bisexual (attracted to both the same and opposite gender) and pansexual (attracted to all humans regardless of gender). Still others refer to themselves as queer—people who identify as someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender. A variety of other terms exist to describe one’s sexual attraction. There are also some people who identify as asexual, which suggests they are not sexually attracted to anyone.

Gender identity relates to how one views their own gender. If you were assigned female at birth and identify as a woman, you are cisgender. If you were assigned male at birth and identify as a woman, you may identify as transgender whether or not you have had gender transitioning surgery or have taken hormones. Some people do not identify with the terms male or female and may view themselves as nonbinary. The terms gender queer, gender fluid, gender diverse, and gender non-conforming also may be used to describe various ways that an individual may not identify as male or female. We also can refer to people as “assigned female at birth” or “assigned male at birth”. People with intersex conditions may require taking a unique medical history that includes asking about genetic testing (eg, 46,XX congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis).

Gender expression refers to how one pre-sents themselves to others through appearance, dress, and behavior. A person may be assigned female at birth, dress in a conventional male fashion, and still identify as a woman. Still others may choose to express their gender in a variety of ways that may not have anything to do with their sexual orientation or gender identity, such as dressing in ways that represent their culture.

People may be fluid in their sexual orientation or gender identity; it may change from day to day, month to month, or even year to year.^6,7

*The term LGBTQI+ is not used consistently in the literature. Throughout this article, the terminology used matches that used in the cited reference(s).

Continue to: Health care and the LGBTQI+ community...

Health care and the LGBTQI+ community

The LGBTQI+ community has a history of experiencing societal discrimination and stigma, which stems from medical mistrust often due to a lack of understanding of their medical and psychosocial needs.^8,9 A 2019 survey of US LGBTQ adults, found that about 50% of people who identified as transgender reported having negative or discriminatory experiences with a health care clinician.¹⁰ About 18% of transgender people anticipated being refused medical care due to their gender identity.¹⁰ About 18% of LGBTQ individuals avoid any type of medical care, fearing discrimination.¹⁰ Lesbian women are 3 times more likely to have not seen an ObGyn than women who identify as straight.¹¹ Sixty-two percent of lesbian women have biological children and received prenatal care; however, of those, 47% do not receive routine cancer screenings.^10,11 Only 45% of age-eligible lesbian women have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with 60% of straight women.^10,11

Due to societal stigma, more than 40% of transgender people have attempted suicide.¹² Felt or perceived stigma is also associated with risky health behaviors that contribute to health disparities. LGBTQI+ people are more likely to use substances,¹³ lesbian women are more likely to be obese,¹⁴ and 19% of transgender men are living with HIV/AIDS.¹⁵ Rates of unintended pregnancy among lesbian women and transgender men are 28%, compared with 6% in straight women, and 12% in heterosexual teens.^15,16

In addition to real or perceived discrimination, there are medical misperceptions among the LGBTQI+ community. For instance, sexual minority women (SMW) are less likely to receive regular screening for cervical cancer. In one survey of more than 400 SMW, about 25% reported not receiving regular screening. SMW may mistakenly believe they do not need Pap testing and pelvic exams because they do not have penile-vaginal intercourse.^17,18 Transgender men may not identify with having a cervix, or may perceive ObGyns to be “gendered” toward people who identify as women.¹⁸

Embracing cultural humility

Cultural humility expands upon the term cultural competence, with the idea that one can never be fully competent in the culture of another person.^19,20 The National Institutes of Health defines cultural humility as “a lifelong process of self-reflection and self-critique whereby the individual not only learns about another’s culture, but one starts with an examination of his/her own beliefs and cultural identities.”²¹

Having cultural humility is the recognition that, in order to treat your ObGyn patient as a whole person and engage in shared medical decision making in the office setting, you need to know their sexual orientation and gender identity. Treating each patient the same is not providing equitable care (equality does not equal equity) because each patient has different medical and psychosocial needs. Embracing cultural humility is the first step in creating safe and welcoming spaces in the ObGyn office.²⁰

CASE Ways to better introduce yourself

To revisit the case, what options does the clinician have to start off on a best foot to create a safe space for Alex?

• Open with your own preferred pronouns. For instance, for an introduction, consider: “I’m Dr. X, my pronouns are she/her.”
• Don’t assume. Do not make assumptions about the relationship between Alex and the person accompanying them.

4 ways for creating welcoming and affirming spaces in ObGyn

1. Make sure your intake form is inclusive. Include a space for pronouns and the patient’s preferred name (which may differ from their legal name). Also allow patients to choose more than 1 sexual orientation and gender identity.²⁰ (An example form is available from the LGBT National Health Education Center: https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/focus-forms-policy-creating-inclusive-environment-lgbt-patients/.)
2. Create a safe environment in the waiting area. Try to ensure that at least 1 bathroom is labeled “All Gender” or “Family.” Gendered bathrooms (eg, Ladies’ or Men’s rooms) are not welcoming. Make sure your non-discrimination policy is displayed and includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Review the patient education and reading materials in your waiting room to ensure they are inclusive. Do they show people with varied gender expression? Do they show same-sex couples or interracial couples?
3. Use a trauma-informed approach when taking a sexual history and while conducting a physical exam. Determine if a pelvic exam is necessary at this visit or can it be postponed for another visit, when trust has been established with the patient. Explain each part of the pelvic/vaginal exam prior to conducting and again while performing the exam. Before taking a sexual history, explain why you are asking the questions and be sure to remain neutral with your questioning. For instance, you can say, “It’s important for me to understand your medical history in detail to provide you with the best health care possible.” Instead of asking, “Do you have sex with men, women, or both?” ask, “Do you have sex with people with a penis, vagina, or both? Do you have anal sex?” Recognize that some patients may be in a polyamorous relationship and may have more than 1 committed partner. For sexually active patients consider asking if they have ever exchanged sex for money or other goods, making sure to avoid judgmental body language or wording. Patients who do engage in “survival sex” may benefit from a discussion on pre-exposure prophylaxis to reduce HIV transmission.²²
4. Provide appropriate counsel based on their feedback.

• Explain their risk for HPV infection and vaccination options.
• Respectfully ask if there is a need for contraception and review options appropriate for their situation.
• Ask about the use of “toys” and provide guidance on sanitation and risk of infection with shared toys.
• Determine current or past hormone use for patients who identify as transgender and nonbinary (although many do not take hormones and have not had gender-affirming procedures, some may be considering these procedures). Be sure to ask these patients if they have had any surgeries or other procedures.

The receipt of gynecologic care can be traumatic for some LGBTQI+ people. Explain to the patient why you are doing everything during your examination and how it might feel. If a pelvic exam is not absolutely necessary that day, perhaps the patient can return another time. For transgender men who have been taking testosterone,vaginal atrophy may be a concern, and you could consider a pediatric speculum.

Personal introspection may be necessary

In summary, the number of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/nonbinary, queer/questioning, intersex, or asexual is not insignificant. Many of these patients or their partners may present for ObGyn care at your office. Clinicians need to understand that there is a new language relative to sexual orientation and gender identity. Incorporating cultural humility into one’s practice requires personal introspection and is a first step to creating safe and welcoming spaces in the ObGyn office. ●

CASE A new patient office visit

A new patient is waiting for you in the exam room. You review the chart and see the sex demographic field is blank, and the patient’s name is Alex. As an ObGyn, most of your patients are female, but you have treated your patients’ partners for sexually transmitted infections. As you enter the room, you see 2 androgynously dressed individuals; you introduce yourself and ask,

“What brings you in today, and who is your friend?”

“This is my partner Charlie, and we are worried I have an STD.”
 

Estimates suggest that between 7% to 12% of the US population identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/non-binary, queer/questioning, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQI+).¹ If you practice in an urban area, the odds are quite high that you have encountered an LGBTQI+ person who openly identified as such; if you are in a rural area, you also likely have had an LGBTQI+ patient, but they may not have disclosed this about themselves.² Maybe you have had training in cultural relevance or are a member of this community and you feel confident in providing quality care to LGBTQI+ patients. Or maybe you think that, as a responsibly practicing health care clinician, you treat all patients the same, so whether or not you know their sexual orientation or gender identity does not impact the care you provide. As the proportion of US adults who identify as LGBTQI+ increases,¹ it becomes more important for health care clinicians to understand the challenges these patients face when trying to access health care. To start, let’s review the meaning of LGBTQI+, the history of the community, what it means to be culturally relevant or humble, and how to create a welcoming and safe practice environment.

LGBTQI+ terms and definitions

The first step in providing quality care to LGBTQI+ patients is to understand the terminology associated with sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.^3–5

Sexual orientation refers to whom a person is sexually attracted. The term straight/heterosexual suggests a person is sexually attracted to a person of the opposite gender. Lesbian or gay refers to those who are attracted to their same gender. Some people use bisexual (attracted to both the same and opposite gender) and pansexual (attracted to all humans regardless of gender). Still others refer to themselves as queer—people who identify as someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender. A variety of other terms exist to describe one’s sexual attraction. There are also some people who identify as asexual, which suggests they are not sexually attracted to anyone.

Gender identity relates to how one views their own gender. If you were assigned female at birth and identify as a woman, you are cisgender. If you were assigned male at birth and identify as a woman, you may identify as transgender whether or not you have had gender transitioning surgery or have taken hormones. Some people do not identify with the terms male or female and may view themselves as nonbinary. The terms gender queer, gender fluid, gender diverse, and gender non-conforming also may be used to describe various ways that an individual may not identify as male or female. We also can refer to people as “assigned female at birth” or “assigned male at birth”. People with intersex conditions may require taking a unique medical history that includes asking about genetic testing (eg, 46,XX congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis).

Gender expression refers to how one pre-sents themselves to others through appearance, dress, and behavior. A person may be assigned female at birth, dress in a conventional male fashion, and still identify as a woman. Still others may choose to express their gender in a variety of ways that may not have anything to do with their sexual orientation or gender identity, such as dressing in ways that represent their culture.

People may be fluid in their sexual orientation or gender identity; it may change from day to day, month to month, or even year to year.^6,7

*The term LGBTQI+ is not used consistently in the literature. Throughout this article, the terminology used matches that used in the cited reference(s).

Continue to: Health care and the LGBTQI+ community...

Health care and the LGBTQI+ community

The LGBTQI+ community has a history of experiencing societal discrimination and stigma, which stems from medical mistrust often due to a lack of understanding of their medical and psychosocial needs.^8,9 A 2019 survey of US LGBTQ adults, found that about 50% of people who identified as transgender reported having negative or discriminatory experiences with a health care clinician.¹⁰ About 18% of transgender people anticipated being refused medical care due to their gender identity.¹⁰ About 18% of LGBTQ individuals avoid any type of medical care, fearing discrimination.¹⁰ Lesbian women are 3 times more likely to have not seen an ObGyn than women who identify as straight.¹¹ Sixty-two percent of lesbian women have biological children and received prenatal care; however, of those, 47% do not receive routine cancer screenings.^10,11 Only 45% of age-eligible lesbian women have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with 60% of straight women.^10,11

Due to societal stigma, more than 40% of transgender people have attempted suicide.¹² Felt or perceived stigma is also associated with risky health behaviors that contribute to health disparities. LGBTQI+ people are more likely to use substances,¹³ lesbian women are more likely to be obese,¹⁴ and 19% of transgender men are living with HIV/AIDS.¹⁵ Rates of unintended pregnancy among lesbian women and transgender men are 28%, compared with 6% in straight women, and 12% in heterosexual teens.^15,16

In addition to real or perceived discrimination, there are medical misperceptions among the LGBTQI+ community. For instance, sexual minority women (SMW) are less likely to receive regular screening for cervical cancer. In one survey of more than 400 SMW, about 25% reported not receiving regular screening. SMW may mistakenly believe they do not need Pap testing and pelvic exams because they do not have penile-vaginal intercourse.^17,18 Transgender men may not identify with having a cervix, or may perceive ObGyns to be “gendered” toward people who identify as women.¹⁸

Embracing cultural humility

Cultural humility expands upon the term cultural competence, with the idea that one can never be fully competent in the culture of another person.^19,20 The National Institutes of Health defines cultural humility as “a lifelong process of self-reflection and self-critique whereby the individual not only learns about another’s culture, but one starts with an examination of his/her own beliefs and cultural identities.”²¹

Having cultural humility is the recognition that, in order to treat your ObGyn patient as a whole person and engage in shared medical decision making in the office setting, you need to know their sexual orientation and gender identity. Treating each patient the same is not providing equitable care (equality does not equal equity) because each patient has different medical and psychosocial needs. Embracing cultural humility is the first step in creating safe and welcoming spaces in the ObGyn office.²⁰

CASE Ways to better introduce yourself

To revisit the case, what options does the clinician have to start off on a best foot to create a safe space for Alex?

• Open with your own preferred pronouns. For instance, for an introduction, consider: “I’m Dr. X, my pronouns are she/her.”
• Don’t assume. Do not make assumptions about the relationship between Alex and the person accompanying them.

4 ways for creating welcoming and affirming spaces in ObGyn

1. Make sure your intake form is inclusive. Include a space for pronouns and the patient’s preferred name (which may differ from their legal name). Also allow patients to choose more than 1 sexual orientation and gender identity.²⁰ (An example form is available from the LGBT National Health Education Center: https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/focus-forms-policy-creating-inclusive-environment-lgbt-patients/.)
2. Create a safe environment in the waiting area. Try to ensure that at least 1 bathroom is labeled “All Gender” or “Family.” Gendered bathrooms (eg, Ladies’ or Men’s rooms) are not welcoming. Make sure your non-discrimination policy is displayed and includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Review the patient education and reading materials in your waiting room to ensure they are inclusive. Do they show people with varied gender expression? Do they show same-sex couples or interracial couples?
3. Use a trauma-informed approach when taking a sexual history and while conducting a physical exam. Determine if a pelvic exam is necessary at this visit or can it be postponed for another visit, when trust has been established with the patient. Explain each part of the pelvic/vaginal exam prior to conducting and again while performing the exam. Before taking a sexual history, explain why you are asking the questions and be sure to remain neutral with your questioning. For instance, you can say, “It’s important for me to understand your medical history in detail to provide you with the best health care possible.” Instead of asking, “Do you have sex with men, women, or both?” ask, “Do you have sex with people with a penis, vagina, or both? Do you have anal sex?” Recognize that some patients may be in a polyamorous relationship and may have more than 1 committed partner. For sexually active patients consider asking if they have ever exchanged sex for money or other goods, making sure to avoid judgmental body language or wording. Patients who do engage in “survival sex” may benefit from a discussion on pre-exposure prophylaxis to reduce HIV transmission.²²
4. Provide appropriate counsel based on their feedback.

• Explain their risk for HPV infection and vaccination options.
• Respectfully ask if there is a need for contraception and review options appropriate for their situation.
• Ask about the use of “toys” and provide guidance on sanitation and risk of infection with shared toys.
• Determine current or past hormone use for patients who identify as transgender and nonbinary (although many do not take hormones and have not had gender-affirming procedures, some may be considering these procedures). Be sure to ask these patients if they have had any surgeries or other procedures.

The receipt of gynecologic care can be traumatic for some LGBTQI+ people. Explain to the patient why you are doing everything during your examination and how it might feel. If a pelvic exam is not absolutely necessary that day, perhaps the patient can return another time. For transgender men who have been taking testosterone,vaginal atrophy may be a concern, and you could consider a pediatric speculum.

Personal introspection may be necessary

In summary, the number of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/nonbinary, queer/questioning, intersex, or asexual is not insignificant. Many of these patients or their partners may present for ObGyn care at your office. Clinicians need to understand that there is a new language relative to sexual orientation and gender identity. Incorporating cultural humility into one’s practice requires personal introspection and is a first step to creating safe and welcoming spaces in the ObGyn office. ●

CASE A new patient office visit

A new patient is waiting for you in the exam room. You review the chart and see the sex demographic field is blank, and the patient’s name is Alex. As an ObGyn, most of your patients are female, but you have treated your patients’ partners for sexually transmitted infections. As you enter the room, you see 2 androgynously dressed individuals; you introduce yourself and ask,

“What brings you in today, and who is your friend?”

“This is my partner Charlie, and we are worried I have an STD.”
 

Estimates suggest that between 7% to 12% of the US population identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/non-binary, queer/questioning, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQI+).¹ If you practice in an urban area, the odds are quite high that you have encountered an LGBTQI+ person who openly identified as such; if you are in a rural area, you also likely have had an LGBTQI+ patient, but they may not have disclosed this about themselves.² Maybe you have had training in cultural relevance or are a member of this community and you feel confident in providing quality care to LGBTQI+ patients. Or maybe you think that, as a responsibly practicing health care clinician, you treat all patients the same, so whether or not you know their sexual orientation or gender identity does not impact the care you provide. As the proportion of US adults who identify as LGBTQI+ increases,¹ it becomes more important for health care clinicians to understand the challenges these patients face when trying to access health care. To start, let’s review the meaning of LGBTQI+, the history of the community, what it means to be culturally relevant or humble, and how to create a welcoming and safe practice environment.

LGBTQI+ terms and definitions

The first step in providing quality care to LGBTQI+ patients is to understand the terminology associated with sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.^3–5

Sexual orientation refers to whom a person is sexually attracted. The term straight/heterosexual suggests a person is sexually attracted to a person of the opposite gender. Lesbian or gay refers to those who are attracted to their same gender. Some people use bisexual (attracted to both the same and opposite gender) and pansexual (attracted to all humans regardless of gender). Still others refer to themselves as queer—people who identify as someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender. A variety of other terms exist to describe one’s sexual attraction. There are also some people who identify as asexual, which suggests they are not sexually attracted to anyone.

Gender identity relates to how one views their own gender. If you were assigned female at birth and identify as a woman, you are cisgender. If you were assigned male at birth and identify as a woman, you may identify as transgender whether or not you have had gender transitioning surgery or have taken hormones. Some people do not identify with the terms male or female and may view themselves as nonbinary. The terms gender queer, gender fluid, gender diverse, and gender non-conforming also may be used to describe various ways that an individual may not identify as male or female. We also can refer to people as “assigned female at birth” or “assigned male at birth”. People with intersex conditions may require taking a unique medical history that includes asking about genetic testing (eg, 46,XX congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis).

Gender expression refers to how one pre-sents themselves to others through appearance, dress, and behavior. A person may be assigned female at birth, dress in a conventional male fashion, and still identify as a woman. Still others may choose to express their gender in a variety of ways that may not have anything to do with their sexual orientation or gender identity, such as dressing in ways that represent their culture.

People may be fluid in their sexual orientation or gender identity; it may change from day to day, month to month, or even year to year.^6,7

*The term LGBTQI+ is not used consistently in the literature. Throughout this article, the terminology used matches that used in the cited reference(s).

Continue to: Health care and the LGBTQI+ community...

Health care and the LGBTQI+ community

The LGBTQI+ community has a history of experiencing societal discrimination and stigma, which stems from medical mistrust often due to a lack of understanding of their medical and psychosocial needs.^8,9 A 2019 survey of US LGBTQ adults, found that about 50% of people who identified as transgender reported having negative or discriminatory experiences with a health care clinician.¹⁰ About 18% of transgender people anticipated being refused medical care due to their gender identity.¹⁰ About 18% of LGBTQ individuals avoid any type of medical care, fearing discrimination.¹⁰ Lesbian women are 3 times more likely to have not seen an ObGyn than women who identify as straight.¹¹ Sixty-two percent of lesbian women have biological children and received prenatal care; however, of those, 47% do not receive routine cancer screenings.^10,11 Only 45% of age-eligible lesbian women have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with 60% of straight women.^10,11

Due to societal stigma, more than 40% of transgender people have attempted suicide.¹² Felt or perceived stigma is also associated with risky health behaviors that contribute to health disparities. LGBTQI+ people are more likely to use substances,¹³ lesbian women are more likely to be obese,¹⁴ and 19% of transgender men are living with HIV/AIDS.¹⁵ Rates of unintended pregnancy among lesbian women and transgender men are 28%, compared with 6% in straight women, and 12% in heterosexual teens.^15,16

In addition to real or perceived discrimination, there are medical misperceptions among the LGBTQI+ community. For instance, sexual minority women (SMW) are less likely to receive regular screening for cervical cancer. In one survey of more than 400 SMW, about 25% reported not receiving regular screening. SMW may mistakenly believe they do not need Pap testing and pelvic exams because they do not have penile-vaginal intercourse.^17,18 Transgender men may not identify with having a cervix, or may perceive ObGyns to be “gendered” toward people who identify as women.¹⁸

Embracing cultural humility

Cultural humility expands upon the term cultural competence, with the idea that one can never be fully competent in the culture of another person.^19,20 The National Institutes of Health defines cultural humility as “a lifelong process of self-reflection and self-critique whereby the individual not only learns about another’s culture, but one starts with an examination of his/her own beliefs and cultural identities.”²¹

Having cultural humility is the recognition that, in order to treat your ObGyn patient as a whole person and engage in shared medical decision making in the office setting, you need to know their sexual orientation and gender identity. Treating each patient the same is not providing equitable care (equality does not equal equity) because each patient has different medical and psychosocial needs. Embracing cultural humility is the first step in creating safe and welcoming spaces in the ObGyn office.²⁰

CASE Ways to better introduce yourself

To revisit the case, what options does the clinician have to start off on a best foot to create a safe space for Alex?

• Open with your own preferred pronouns. For instance, for an introduction, consider: “I’m Dr. X, my pronouns are she/her.”
• Don’t assume. Do not make assumptions about the relationship between Alex and the person accompanying them.

4 ways for creating welcoming and affirming spaces in ObGyn

1. Make sure your intake form is inclusive. Include a space for pronouns and the patient’s preferred name (which may differ from their legal name). Also allow patients to choose more than 1 sexual orientation and gender identity.²⁰ (An example form is available from the LGBT National Health Education Center: https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/focus-forms-policy-creating-inclusive-environment-lgbt-patients/.)
2. Create a safe environment in the waiting area. Try to ensure that at least 1 bathroom is labeled “All Gender” or “Family.” Gendered bathrooms (eg, Ladies’ or Men’s rooms) are not welcoming. Make sure your non-discrimination policy is displayed and includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Review the patient education and reading materials in your waiting room to ensure they are inclusive. Do they show people with varied gender expression? Do they show same-sex couples or interracial couples?
3. Use a trauma-informed approach when taking a sexual history and while conducting a physical exam. Determine if a pelvic exam is necessary at this visit or can it be postponed for another visit, when trust has been established with the patient. Explain each part of the pelvic/vaginal exam prior to conducting and again while performing the exam. Before taking a sexual history, explain why you are asking the questions and be sure to remain neutral with your questioning. For instance, you can say, “It’s important for me to understand your medical history in detail to provide you with the best health care possible.” Instead of asking, “Do you have sex with men, women, or both?” ask, “Do you have sex with people with a penis, vagina, or both? Do you have anal sex?” Recognize that some patients may be in a polyamorous relationship and may have more than 1 committed partner. For sexually active patients consider asking if they have ever exchanged sex for money or other goods, making sure to avoid judgmental body language or wording. Patients who do engage in “survival sex” may benefit from a discussion on pre-exposure prophylaxis to reduce HIV transmission.²²
4. Provide appropriate counsel based on their feedback.

• Explain their risk for HPV infection and vaccination options.
• Respectfully ask if there is a need for contraception and review options appropriate for their situation.
• Ask about the use of “toys” and provide guidance on sanitation and risk of infection with shared toys.
• Determine current or past hormone use for patients who identify as transgender and nonbinary (although many do not take hormones and have not had gender-affirming procedures, some may be considering these procedures). Be sure to ask these patients if they have had any surgeries or other procedures.

The receipt of gynecologic care can be traumatic for some LGBTQI+ people. Explain to the patient why you are doing everything during your examination and how it might feel. If a pelvic exam is not absolutely necessary that day, perhaps the patient can return another time. For transgender men who have been taking testosterone,vaginal atrophy may be a concern, and you could consider a pediatric speculum.

Personal introspection may be necessary

In summary, the number of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/nonbinary, queer/questioning, intersex, or asexual is not insignificant. Many of these patients or their partners may present for ObGyn care at your office. Clinicians need to understand that there is a new language relative to sexual orientation and gender identity. Incorporating cultural humility into one’s practice requires personal introspection and is a first step to creating safe and welcoming spaces in the ObGyn office. ●

Dear OBG Management Reader:

Frontline Medical Communications Inc has made the difficult decision to discontinue publication of OBG Management, effective with this issue. We thank OBG Management’s esteemed Editorial Board, loyal readers, and dedicated authors for their support. It has been our privilege to publish OBG Management for 35 years. 

The online archive of clinical content for OBG Management (2002–2023) remains accessible on MDedge ObGyn. Reprint requests can be directed to Wright’s Media via email [email protected] or telephone (877-652-5295). 

For the latest news and information on obstetrics and gynecology, continue to turn to MDedge ObGyn. 

Goodbye to OBG Management

Robert L. Barbieri, MD

OBG Management was founded in 1988 by Carroll Dowden, a giant in the field of medical publishing. During his career he served as the editor or publisher of Medical Economics, Physician’s Desk Reference, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings. In creating OBG Management, Mr. Dowden’s vision was to edit and publish a monthly magazine focused on issues that impact the practice of obstetrics and gynecology, including patient care and practice management. Dr. Jeffrey Phelan was the founding editor-in-chief of OBG Management, serving from 1988 through 2000, when I became the editor-in-chief. It is with the greatest sadness that we announce that publication of OBG Management will cease with the December 2023 issue, 35 years after its inception.

Over 4 decades, the work of the OBG Management editorial team and authors has been guided by our mission to “enhance the quality of women’s health care and the professional development of ObGyns and all women’s health care clinicians.” The teamwork of our editorial board is the primary reason for the success of OBG Management, ensuring that we consistently provided practical clinical guidance on the most important topics in our field with the goal of improving the health care of our patients. We are proud that OBG Management has been recognized as #1 in readership among obstetrics and gynecology publications.

Our editorial board members are nationally recognized experts in our field and innovators in clinical care. Our editorial members include: Arnold P. Advincula, MD; Linda D. Bradley, MD; Amy L. Garcia, MD; Steven R. Goldstein, MD, MSCP, CCD; Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, MSCP; Barbara Levy, MD; David G. Mutch, MD; Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA; Jaimey Pauli, MD; JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, MSCP; Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD; and James A. Simon, MD, CCD, IF, MSCP. Prior to his retirement, Dr. John Repke was an important member of our editorial board. Over the past decade our editorial team—Lila O’Connor, Editorial Manager, and Kathy Christie, Senior Medical Content Editor—have ensured that the articles written by our authors are expertly prepared for publication and presentation to our readers.

In clinical practice, we sometimes do not achieve the optimal patient outcomes we desire. Over the past 4 decades, the OBG Management team has strived to identify opportunities to improve patient outcomes and offer practical approaches to optimize practice. We will miss the opportunity to work with you, our community of clinical experts in women’s health care. ●

Dear OBG Management Reader:

Frontline Medical Communications Inc has made the difficult decision to discontinue publication of OBG Management, effective with this issue. We thank OBG Management’s esteemed Editorial Board, loyal readers, and dedicated authors for their support. It has been our privilege to publish OBG Management for 35 years. 

The online archive of clinical content for OBG Management (2002–2023) remains accessible on MDedge ObGyn. Reprint requests can be directed to Wright’s Media via email [email protected] or telephone (877-652-5295). 

For the latest news and information on obstetrics and gynecology, continue to turn to MDedge ObGyn. 

Goodbye to OBG Management

Robert L. Barbieri, MD

OBG Management was founded in 1988 by Carroll Dowden, a giant in the field of medical publishing. During his career he served as the editor or publisher of Medical Economics, Physician’s Desk Reference, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings. In creating OBG Management, Mr. Dowden’s vision was to edit and publish a monthly magazine focused on issues that impact the practice of obstetrics and gynecology, including patient care and practice management. Dr. Jeffrey Phelan was the founding editor-in-chief of OBG Management, serving from 1988 through 2000, when I became the editor-in-chief. It is with the greatest sadness that we announce that publication of OBG Management will cease with the December 2023 issue, 35 years after its inception.

Over 4 decades, the work of the OBG Management editorial team and authors has been guided by our mission to “enhance the quality of women’s health care and the professional development of ObGyns and all women’s health care clinicians.” The teamwork of our editorial board is the primary reason for the success of OBG Management, ensuring that we consistently provided practical clinical guidance on the most important topics in our field with the goal of improving the health care of our patients. We are proud that OBG Management has been recognized as #1 in readership among obstetrics and gynecology publications.

Our editorial board members are nationally recognized experts in our field and innovators in clinical care. Our editorial members include: Arnold P. Advincula, MD; Linda D. Bradley, MD; Amy L. Garcia, MD; Steven R. Goldstein, MD, MSCP, CCD; Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, MSCP; Barbara Levy, MD; David G. Mutch, MD; Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA; Jaimey Pauli, MD; JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, MSCP; Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD; and James A. Simon, MD, CCD, IF, MSCP. Prior to his retirement, Dr. John Repke was an important member of our editorial board. Over the past decade our editorial team—Lila O’Connor, Editorial Manager, and Kathy Christie, Senior Medical Content Editor—have ensured that the articles written by our authors are expertly prepared for publication and presentation to our readers.

In clinical practice, we sometimes do not achieve the optimal patient outcomes we desire. Over the past 4 decades, the OBG Management team has strived to identify opportunities to improve patient outcomes and offer practical approaches to optimize practice. We will miss the opportunity to work with you, our community of clinical experts in women’s health care. ●

Dear OBG Management Reader:

Frontline Medical Communications Inc has made the difficult decision to discontinue publication of OBG Management, effective with this issue. We thank OBG Management’s esteemed Editorial Board, loyal readers, and dedicated authors for their support. It has been our privilege to publish OBG Management for 35 years. 

The online archive of clinical content for OBG Management (2002–2023) remains accessible on MDedge ObGyn. Reprint requests can be directed to Wright’s Media via email [email protected] or telephone (877-652-5295). 

For the latest news and information on obstetrics and gynecology, continue to turn to MDedge ObGyn. 

Goodbye to OBG Management

Robert L. Barbieri, MD

OBG Management was founded in 1988 by Carroll Dowden, a giant in the field of medical publishing. During his career he served as the editor or publisher of Medical Economics, Physician’s Desk Reference, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings. In creating OBG Management, Mr. Dowden’s vision was to edit and publish a monthly magazine focused on issues that impact the practice of obstetrics and gynecology, including patient care and practice management. Dr. Jeffrey Phelan was the founding editor-in-chief of OBG Management, serving from 1988 through 2000, when I became the editor-in-chief. It is with the greatest sadness that we announce that publication of OBG Management will cease with the December 2023 issue, 35 years after its inception.

Over 4 decades, the work of the OBG Management editorial team and authors has been guided by our mission to “enhance the quality of women’s health care and the professional development of ObGyns and all women’s health care clinicians.” The teamwork of our editorial board is the primary reason for the success of OBG Management, ensuring that we consistently provided practical clinical guidance on the most important topics in our field with the goal of improving the health care of our patients. We are proud that OBG Management has been recognized as #1 in readership among obstetrics and gynecology publications.

Our editorial board members are nationally recognized experts in our field and innovators in clinical care. Our editorial members include: Arnold P. Advincula, MD; Linda D. Bradley, MD; Amy L. Garcia, MD; Steven R. Goldstein, MD, MSCP, CCD; Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, MSCP; Barbara Levy, MD; David G. Mutch, MD; Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA; Jaimey Pauli, MD; JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, MSCP; Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD; and James A. Simon, MD, CCD, IF, MSCP. Prior to his retirement, Dr. John Repke was an important member of our editorial board. Over the past decade our editorial team—Lila O’Connor, Editorial Manager, and Kathy Christie, Senior Medical Content Editor—have ensured that the articles written by our authors are expertly prepared for publication and presentation to our readers.

In clinical practice, we sometimes do not achieve the optimal patient outcomes we desire. Over the past 4 decades, the OBG Management team has strived to identify opportunities to improve patient outcomes and offer practical approaches to optimize practice. We will miss the opportunity to work with you, our community of clinical experts in women’s health care. ●