Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatologists improve the diagnostic accuracy and quality of care of patients in the hospital setting. They help shorten the length of stay, improve outpatient follow-up, and reduce the rate of hospital readmission.¹ Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with skin conditions at institutions with a dermatology hospitalist—a provider with a specialty interest in inpatient dermatology—have 24% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and 12% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day readmissions.²

In the last year, research among the dermatology hospitalist community has actively contributed to our understanding of challenging inpatient skin diseases and has identified new ways in which dermatologists can contribute to the care of hospitalized patients. In this review, we highlight 4 areas of focus from the published literature in 2022-2023—severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Old and New

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications frequently are encountered in the inpatient setting. Dermatology hospitalists are well positioned to phenotype these reactions, drawing insights that aid in identifying, characterizing, risk stratifying, and managing these conditions, which have considerable morbidity and mortality.

A recent 20-year retrospective review of cases of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (N=340) across 10 academic systems—the largest to date—improves our understanding of the features of this rare entity.³ The authors found that acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis most often is triggered by β-lactam and other antibiotics (75.5%) and is accompanied by fever (49.7%), neutrophilia (85.1%), and eosinophilia (52.1%). Kidney and liver involvement occur in less than 10% of cases, and mortality rates are low but not zero, with an all-cause 30-day mortality rate of 3.5%.³

In a multi-institutional retrospective study of 68 patients diagnosed with DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, Sharma et al⁴ developed a scoring system to identify those at greatest risk for DRESS recurrence. Variables associated with recurrence including younger age, female sex, and features considered atypical for DRESS syndrome—nonmorbilliform rash; absence of facial edema; antinuclear antibody positivity; medication class other than antibiotic, antigout, or antiseizure—were used to develop a “ReDRESS” score. This predictive model had a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 83% for predicting DRESS recurrence.⁴

Another case series characterized SCoRCH (sudden conjunctivitis, lymphopenia, sunburnlike rash, and hemodynamic changes), a newly described hypersensitivity reaction to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁵ The onset of this reaction typically occurs 4 to 11 days after initiation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole but can occur as quickly as 1 day following re-exposure. Patients are systemically ill with fever, hypotension, tachycardia, acute renal insufficiency, and transaminitis, and they have a diffuse sunburnlike erythema without scale, facial edema, and conjunctivitis. It is thought this distinct hypersensitivity reaction may be mediated by IL-6, which has a role in triggering a sepsislike physiology, with vasodilation, hypotension, and edema.⁵

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that sulfonamides remain the most prominent cause of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).⁶ A case-control study described SJS/TEN presentations triggered by Mycoplasma, advocating for routine Mycoplasma screening, especially in patients without a clear medication culprit. Mycoplasma-induced cases carried statistically lower rates of mortality (0%) compared with medication-induced cases (22.5%).⁷ Another prospective open-label study evaluated SJS/TEN management by randomizing 25 patients to receive either combination therapy with methylprednisolone plus a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor or methylprednisolone alone.⁸ Anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a shorter length of initial steroid treatment and duration of the acute stage, hospitalization, and time to re-epithelialization⁸; however, as in a prior randomized unblinded trial,⁹ there was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups.

There is limited high-quality evidence to support the use of any systemic immunomodulator to decrease SJS/TEN–related mortality.¹⁰ A Cochrane systematic review highlighted the many limitations of the available data due to variations in presentation, assessment, and management.¹¹ Because SJS/TEN is rare, powering studies based on mortality is infeasible; the authors calculated that 2872 participants were needed to detect a 50% mortality reduction among those with SCORTEN (severity-of-illness score for TEN) scores of 0 to 1.¹¹ Therefore, collaborative efforts using appropriate outcomes measures (eg, time to re-epithelialization, length of hospital stay), standardized terminology and dosing regimens, and adaptive trial designs are needed. Consensus-derived assessment and treatment protocols could help account for variation, ensure consistency in treatment, and enable head-to-head comparisons. Members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists are working on efforts to standardize terminology and validate outcomes measures needed for future studies.¹²

Supportive Oncodermatology: A New Frontier

With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for a growing number of cancers, dermatologists have become critical to identifying and managing cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs). Recent findings have demonstrated that dermatology input improves patient outcomes, not only regarding the treatment of dermatoses but also by augmenting cancer-related survival. One group found that patients with cirAEs who were evaluated by a dermatologist had improved progression-free (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.87; P=.002) and overall survival rates (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84; P=.002), controlling for cirAE severity, age, sex, cancer type, and ICI subtype. Patients who were under the care of a dermatologist also were more likely to resume ICI therapy following an interruption (odds ratio, 10.52; 95% CI, 5.15-21.48; P<.001).¹³ Dermatologists help to optimize skin-directed and targeted therapies, such as dupilumab, minimizing exposure to systemic immunosuppression in these complex patients.¹⁴

Supportive oncodermatologists also have made important observations on how cirAEs relate to other adverse events and prognosis. A review of 628 patients found that almost half of those with cirAEs had co-occurring noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, most commonly pulmonary. Psoriasiform eruptions were most frequently associated with noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, and cutaneous reactions frequently preceded the development of systemic manifestations, serving as a clinical biomarker to provide prognostic information.¹⁵ A review of 95 patients found that spongiotic and lichenoid interface reactions were associated with decreased mortality rates, whereas vacuolar interface and perivascular dermatitis were associated with increased mortality.¹⁶

As with severe cutaneous adverse events, dermatology input has been critical for accurately phenotyping and risk stratifying these novel reactions. The dermatologist’s skill set is necessary for optimizing skin-directed and targeted therapies while minimizing systemic immunosuppression, thereby improving patient outcomes with respect to rash, cancer response, and survival.

The Cost of Inpatient Skin Disease

Hospitalizations account for approximately half of all health care expenditures, and hospital readmission, seen as a measure of the quality of health care delivery, can double this cost.¹⁷ Identifying and developing protocols for addressing patients with complex chronic inflammatory disorders is one strategy for improving outcomes and reducing financial burden. Inpatient dermatologists have identified hidradenitis suppurativa as one disease that can benefit from early intervention by dermatologists in the hospital, with its 30-day (17.8%) and 180-day (48.6%) readmission rates being comparable to those of heart failure.¹⁸

Following an index emergency department (ED) visit, 17.2% (3484/20,269) of patients with HS have at least 1 return ED visit within 30 days, while only 2.4% (483/20,269) have a dermatology visit within the same time frame.¹⁹ Understanding the risk factors for hospital readmission and ED utilization, including severity of illness, the presence of medical comorbidities, health coverage under Medicaid, and receipt of opioids, can allow dermatologists to anticipate those at greatest risk.¹⁹ Opportunities exist for cross-specialty interventions to anticipate and address modifiable risk factors. Shorter time to dermatology outpatient follow-up leads to improved clinic attendance and may help reduce ED utilization and hospital readmission.²⁰

Teledermatology: Leveraging Inpatient Expertise

Although the benefit of inpatient dermatologic care is substantial, access to that care is finite. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased acceptance of telemedicine and the long-term role it can play in leveraging dermatologic expertise, including meeting the increasing demand for inpatient dermatology care in rural and resource-poor communities.²¹

Recent studies conducted by dermatology hospitalists have illustrated the value of asynchronous store-and-forward technology in settings lacking access to consultative dermatology.^22,23 Stephens et al²² found that expanding provider-to-provider electronic consultation (e-consultation) capacity to an inpatient rehabilitation facility resulted in completed consultations within 1.5 days compared with a 7- to 14-day wait time for patients attending an in-person urgent access dermatology clinic. In another study, the implementation of asynchronous dermatology e-consultations for immunobullous diseases, vasculitis, and herpes zoster resulted in a change in diagnosis 86% of the time, accompanied by at least 1 new systemic or topical therapy recommendation.²³

Researchers also identified ways in which teledermatology can be inelegant and proposed specific supplemental data to aid in diagnosis. A review of 126 inpatient e-consultations demonstrated limitations related to the diagnosis of skin and soft-tissue infections. In two-thirds to three-quarters of cases, potentially useful descriptive information was missing, and in 70% (88/126), images were not appropriately focused. The authors developed a detailed checklist to help primary medical teams focus their differential diagnoses.²⁴ A recent pilot study found that supplementation of clinical information with a standardized questionnaire and thermal images improved the accuracy of cellulitis diagnosis. Using this method, there was no difference in accuracy between dermatology hospitalists and other board-certified dermatologists, supporting the notion that any dermatologist can fulfill this need successfully, even without specific inpatient experience.²⁵ Due to the high incidence and cost of cellulitis and related hospital admissions,²⁶ such an intervention could have a considerable financial and patient safety impact.

Final Thoughts

This last year brought many changes to the health care landscape, the recession of a global pandemic, and an increasingly complex health care delivery system. Inpatient dermatologists met these challenges by providing high-quality dermatologic care and practice-modifying research in the areas of severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, hospital readmission, telemedicine, and more, demonstrating the value of dermatologic expertise in the hospital setting.

Dermatologists improve the diagnostic accuracy and quality of care of patients in the hospital setting. They help shorten the length of stay, improve outpatient follow-up, and reduce the rate of hospital readmission.¹ Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with skin conditions at institutions with a dermatology hospitalist—a provider with a specialty interest in inpatient dermatology—have 24% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and 12% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day readmissions.²

In the last year, research among the dermatology hospitalist community has actively contributed to our understanding of challenging inpatient skin diseases and has identified new ways in which dermatologists can contribute to the care of hospitalized patients. In this review, we highlight 4 areas of focus from the published literature in 2022-2023—severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Old and New

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications frequently are encountered in the inpatient setting. Dermatology hospitalists are well positioned to phenotype these reactions, drawing insights that aid in identifying, characterizing, risk stratifying, and managing these conditions, which have considerable morbidity and mortality.

A recent 20-year retrospective review of cases of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (N=340) across 10 academic systems—the largest to date—improves our understanding of the features of this rare entity.³ The authors found that acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis most often is triggered by β-lactam and other antibiotics (75.5%) and is accompanied by fever (49.7%), neutrophilia (85.1%), and eosinophilia (52.1%). Kidney and liver involvement occur in less than 10% of cases, and mortality rates are low but not zero, with an all-cause 30-day mortality rate of 3.5%.³

In a multi-institutional retrospective study of 68 patients diagnosed with DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, Sharma et al⁴ developed a scoring system to identify those at greatest risk for DRESS recurrence. Variables associated with recurrence including younger age, female sex, and features considered atypical for DRESS syndrome—nonmorbilliform rash; absence of facial edema; antinuclear antibody positivity; medication class other than antibiotic, antigout, or antiseizure—were used to develop a “ReDRESS” score. This predictive model had a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 83% for predicting DRESS recurrence.⁴

Another case series characterized SCoRCH (sudden conjunctivitis, lymphopenia, sunburnlike rash, and hemodynamic changes), a newly described hypersensitivity reaction to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁵ The onset of this reaction typically occurs 4 to 11 days after initiation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole but can occur as quickly as 1 day following re-exposure. Patients are systemically ill with fever, hypotension, tachycardia, acute renal insufficiency, and transaminitis, and they have a diffuse sunburnlike erythema without scale, facial edema, and conjunctivitis. It is thought this distinct hypersensitivity reaction may be mediated by IL-6, which has a role in triggering a sepsislike physiology, with vasodilation, hypotension, and edema.⁵

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that sulfonamides remain the most prominent cause of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).⁶ A case-control study described SJS/TEN presentations triggered by Mycoplasma, advocating for routine Mycoplasma screening, especially in patients without a clear medication culprit. Mycoplasma-induced cases carried statistically lower rates of mortality (0%) compared with medication-induced cases (22.5%).⁷ Another prospective open-label study evaluated SJS/TEN management by randomizing 25 patients to receive either combination therapy with methylprednisolone plus a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor or methylprednisolone alone.⁸ Anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a shorter length of initial steroid treatment and duration of the acute stage, hospitalization, and time to re-epithelialization⁸; however, as in a prior randomized unblinded trial,⁹ there was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups.

There is limited high-quality evidence to support the use of any systemic immunomodulator to decrease SJS/TEN–related mortality.¹⁰ A Cochrane systematic review highlighted the many limitations of the available data due to variations in presentation, assessment, and management.¹¹ Because SJS/TEN is rare, powering studies based on mortality is infeasible; the authors calculated that 2872 participants were needed to detect a 50% mortality reduction among those with SCORTEN (severity-of-illness score for TEN) scores of 0 to 1.¹¹ Therefore, collaborative efforts using appropriate outcomes measures (eg, time to re-epithelialization, length of hospital stay), standardized terminology and dosing regimens, and adaptive trial designs are needed. Consensus-derived assessment and treatment protocols could help account for variation, ensure consistency in treatment, and enable head-to-head comparisons. Members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists are working on efforts to standardize terminology and validate outcomes measures needed for future studies.¹²

Supportive Oncodermatology: A New Frontier

With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for a growing number of cancers, dermatologists have become critical to identifying and managing cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs). Recent findings have demonstrated that dermatology input improves patient outcomes, not only regarding the treatment of dermatoses but also by augmenting cancer-related survival. One group found that patients with cirAEs who were evaluated by a dermatologist had improved progression-free (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.87; P=.002) and overall survival rates (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84; P=.002), controlling for cirAE severity, age, sex, cancer type, and ICI subtype. Patients who were under the care of a dermatologist also were more likely to resume ICI therapy following an interruption (odds ratio, 10.52; 95% CI, 5.15-21.48; P<.001).¹³ Dermatologists help to optimize skin-directed and targeted therapies, such as dupilumab, minimizing exposure to systemic immunosuppression in these complex patients.¹⁴

Supportive oncodermatologists also have made important observations on how cirAEs relate to other adverse events and prognosis. A review of 628 patients found that almost half of those with cirAEs had co-occurring noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, most commonly pulmonary. Psoriasiform eruptions were most frequently associated with noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, and cutaneous reactions frequently preceded the development of systemic manifestations, serving as a clinical biomarker to provide prognostic information.¹⁵ A review of 95 patients found that spongiotic and lichenoid interface reactions were associated with decreased mortality rates, whereas vacuolar interface and perivascular dermatitis were associated with increased mortality.¹⁶

As with severe cutaneous adverse events, dermatology input has been critical for accurately phenotyping and risk stratifying these novel reactions. The dermatologist’s skill set is necessary for optimizing skin-directed and targeted therapies while minimizing systemic immunosuppression, thereby improving patient outcomes with respect to rash, cancer response, and survival.

The Cost of Inpatient Skin Disease

Hospitalizations account for approximately half of all health care expenditures, and hospital readmission, seen as a measure of the quality of health care delivery, can double this cost.¹⁷ Identifying and developing protocols for addressing patients with complex chronic inflammatory disorders is one strategy for improving outcomes and reducing financial burden. Inpatient dermatologists have identified hidradenitis suppurativa as one disease that can benefit from early intervention by dermatologists in the hospital, with its 30-day (17.8%) and 180-day (48.6%) readmission rates being comparable to those of heart failure.¹⁸

Following an index emergency department (ED) visit, 17.2% (3484/20,269) of patients with HS have at least 1 return ED visit within 30 days, while only 2.4% (483/20,269) have a dermatology visit within the same time frame.¹⁹ Understanding the risk factors for hospital readmission and ED utilization, including severity of illness, the presence of medical comorbidities, health coverage under Medicaid, and receipt of opioids, can allow dermatologists to anticipate those at greatest risk.¹⁹ Opportunities exist for cross-specialty interventions to anticipate and address modifiable risk factors. Shorter time to dermatology outpatient follow-up leads to improved clinic attendance and may help reduce ED utilization and hospital readmission.²⁰

Teledermatology: Leveraging Inpatient Expertise

Although the benefit of inpatient dermatologic care is substantial, access to that care is finite. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased acceptance of telemedicine and the long-term role it can play in leveraging dermatologic expertise, including meeting the increasing demand for inpatient dermatology care in rural and resource-poor communities.²¹

Recent studies conducted by dermatology hospitalists have illustrated the value of asynchronous store-and-forward technology in settings lacking access to consultative dermatology.^22,23 Stephens et al²² found that expanding provider-to-provider electronic consultation (e-consultation) capacity to an inpatient rehabilitation facility resulted in completed consultations within 1.5 days compared with a 7- to 14-day wait time for patients attending an in-person urgent access dermatology clinic. In another study, the implementation of asynchronous dermatology e-consultations for immunobullous diseases, vasculitis, and herpes zoster resulted in a change in diagnosis 86% of the time, accompanied by at least 1 new systemic or topical therapy recommendation.²³

Researchers also identified ways in which teledermatology can be inelegant and proposed specific supplemental data to aid in diagnosis. A review of 126 inpatient e-consultations demonstrated limitations related to the diagnosis of skin and soft-tissue infections. In two-thirds to three-quarters of cases, potentially useful descriptive information was missing, and in 70% (88/126), images were not appropriately focused. The authors developed a detailed checklist to help primary medical teams focus their differential diagnoses.²⁴ A recent pilot study found that supplementation of clinical information with a standardized questionnaire and thermal images improved the accuracy of cellulitis diagnosis. Using this method, there was no difference in accuracy between dermatology hospitalists and other board-certified dermatologists, supporting the notion that any dermatologist can fulfill this need successfully, even without specific inpatient experience.²⁵ Due to the high incidence and cost of cellulitis and related hospital admissions,²⁶ such an intervention could have a considerable financial and patient safety impact.

Final Thoughts

This last year brought many changes to the health care landscape, the recession of a global pandemic, and an increasingly complex health care delivery system. Inpatient dermatologists met these challenges by providing high-quality dermatologic care and practice-modifying research in the areas of severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, hospital readmission, telemedicine, and more, demonstrating the value of dermatologic expertise in the hospital setting.

Dermatologists improve the diagnostic accuracy and quality of care of patients in the hospital setting. They help shorten the length of stay, improve outpatient follow-up, and reduce the rate of hospital readmission.¹ Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with skin conditions at institutions with a dermatology hospitalist—a provider with a specialty interest in inpatient dermatology—have 24% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and 12% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day readmissions.²

In the last year, research among the dermatology hospitalist community has actively contributed to our understanding of challenging inpatient skin diseases and has identified new ways in which dermatologists can contribute to the care of hospitalized patients. In this review, we highlight 4 areas of focus from the published literature in 2022-2023—severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Old and New

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications frequently are encountered in the inpatient setting. Dermatology hospitalists are well positioned to phenotype these reactions, drawing insights that aid in identifying, characterizing, risk stratifying, and managing these conditions, which have considerable morbidity and mortality.

A recent 20-year retrospective review of cases of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (N=340) across 10 academic systems—the largest to date—improves our understanding of the features of this rare entity.³ The authors found that acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis most often is triggered by β-lactam and other antibiotics (75.5%) and is accompanied by fever (49.7%), neutrophilia (85.1%), and eosinophilia (52.1%). Kidney and liver involvement occur in less than 10% of cases, and mortality rates are low but not zero, with an all-cause 30-day mortality rate of 3.5%.³

In a multi-institutional retrospective study of 68 patients diagnosed with DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, Sharma et al⁴ developed a scoring system to identify those at greatest risk for DRESS recurrence. Variables associated with recurrence including younger age, female sex, and features considered atypical for DRESS syndrome—nonmorbilliform rash; absence of facial edema; antinuclear antibody positivity; medication class other than antibiotic, antigout, or antiseizure—were used to develop a “ReDRESS” score. This predictive model had a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 83% for predicting DRESS recurrence.⁴

Another case series characterized SCoRCH (sudden conjunctivitis, lymphopenia, sunburnlike rash, and hemodynamic changes), a newly described hypersensitivity reaction to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁵ The onset of this reaction typically occurs 4 to 11 days after initiation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole but can occur as quickly as 1 day following re-exposure. Patients are systemically ill with fever, hypotension, tachycardia, acute renal insufficiency, and transaminitis, and they have a diffuse sunburnlike erythema without scale, facial edema, and conjunctivitis. It is thought this distinct hypersensitivity reaction may be mediated by IL-6, which has a role in triggering a sepsislike physiology, with vasodilation, hypotension, and edema.⁵

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that sulfonamides remain the most prominent cause of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).⁶ A case-control study described SJS/TEN presentations triggered by Mycoplasma, advocating for routine Mycoplasma screening, especially in patients without a clear medication culprit. Mycoplasma-induced cases carried statistically lower rates of mortality (0%) compared with medication-induced cases (22.5%).⁷ Another prospective open-label study evaluated SJS/TEN management by randomizing 25 patients to receive either combination therapy with methylprednisolone plus a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor or methylprednisolone alone.⁸ Anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a shorter length of initial steroid treatment and duration of the acute stage, hospitalization, and time to re-epithelialization⁸; however, as in a prior randomized unblinded trial,⁹ there was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups.

There is limited high-quality evidence to support the use of any systemic immunomodulator to decrease SJS/TEN–related mortality.¹⁰ A Cochrane systematic review highlighted the many limitations of the available data due to variations in presentation, assessment, and management.¹¹ Because SJS/TEN is rare, powering studies based on mortality is infeasible; the authors calculated that 2872 participants were needed to detect a 50% mortality reduction among those with SCORTEN (severity-of-illness score for TEN) scores of 0 to 1.¹¹ Therefore, collaborative efforts using appropriate outcomes measures (eg, time to re-epithelialization, length of hospital stay), standardized terminology and dosing regimens, and adaptive trial designs are needed. Consensus-derived assessment and treatment protocols could help account for variation, ensure consistency in treatment, and enable head-to-head comparisons. Members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists are working on efforts to standardize terminology and validate outcomes measures needed for future studies.¹²

Supportive Oncodermatology: A New Frontier

With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for a growing number of cancers, dermatologists have become critical to identifying and managing cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs). Recent findings have demonstrated that dermatology input improves patient outcomes, not only regarding the treatment of dermatoses but also by augmenting cancer-related survival. One group found that patients with cirAEs who were evaluated by a dermatologist had improved progression-free (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.87; P=.002) and overall survival rates (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84; P=.002), controlling for cirAE severity, age, sex, cancer type, and ICI subtype. Patients who were under the care of a dermatologist also were more likely to resume ICI therapy following an interruption (odds ratio, 10.52; 95% CI, 5.15-21.48; P<.001).¹³ Dermatologists help to optimize skin-directed and targeted therapies, such as dupilumab, minimizing exposure to systemic immunosuppression in these complex patients.¹⁴

Supportive oncodermatologists also have made important observations on how cirAEs relate to other adverse events and prognosis. A review of 628 patients found that almost half of those with cirAEs had co-occurring noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, most commonly pulmonary. Psoriasiform eruptions were most frequently associated with noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, and cutaneous reactions frequently preceded the development of systemic manifestations, serving as a clinical biomarker to provide prognostic information.¹⁵ A review of 95 patients found that spongiotic and lichenoid interface reactions were associated with decreased mortality rates, whereas vacuolar interface and perivascular dermatitis were associated with increased mortality.¹⁶

As with severe cutaneous adverse events, dermatology input has been critical for accurately phenotyping and risk stratifying these novel reactions. The dermatologist’s skill set is necessary for optimizing skin-directed and targeted therapies while minimizing systemic immunosuppression, thereby improving patient outcomes with respect to rash, cancer response, and survival.

The Cost of Inpatient Skin Disease

Hospitalizations account for approximately half of all health care expenditures, and hospital readmission, seen as a measure of the quality of health care delivery, can double this cost.¹⁷ Identifying and developing protocols for addressing patients with complex chronic inflammatory disorders is one strategy for improving outcomes and reducing financial burden. Inpatient dermatologists have identified hidradenitis suppurativa as one disease that can benefit from early intervention by dermatologists in the hospital, with its 30-day (17.8%) and 180-day (48.6%) readmission rates being comparable to those of heart failure.¹⁸

Following an index emergency department (ED) visit, 17.2% (3484/20,269) of patients with HS have at least 1 return ED visit within 30 days, while only 2.4% (483/20,269) have a dermatology visit within the same time frame.¹⁹ Understanding the risk factors for hospital readmission and ED utilization, including severity of illness, the presence of medical comorbidities, health coverage under Medicaid, and receipt of opioids, can allow dermatologists to anticipate those at greatest risk.¹⁹ Opportunities exist for cross-specialty interventions to anticipate and address modifiable risk factors. Shorter time to dermatology outpatient follow-up leads to improved clinic attendance and may help reduce ED utilization and hospital readmission.²⁰

Teledermatology: Leveraging Inpatient Expertise

Although the benefit of inpatient dermatologic care is substantial, access to that care is finite. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased acceptance of telemedicine and the long-term role it can play in leveraging dermatologic expertise, including meeting the increasing demand for inpatient dermatology care in rural and resource-poor communities.²¹

Recent studies conducted by dermatology hospitalists have illustrated the value of asynchronous store-and-forward technology in settings lacking access to consultative dermatology.^22,23 Stephens et al²² found that expanding provider-to-provider electronic consultation (e-consultation) capacity to an inpatient rehabilitation facility resulted in completed consultations within 1.5 days compared with a 7- to 14-day wait time for patients attending an in-person urgent access dermatology clinic. In another study, the implementation of asynchronous dermatology e-consultations for immunobullous diseases, vasculitis, and herpes zoster resulted in a change in diagnosis 86% of the time, accompanied by at least 1 new systemic or topical therapy recommendation.²³

Researchers also identified ways in which teledermatology can be inelegant and proposed specific supplemental data to aid in diagnosis. A review of 126 inpatient e-consultations demonstrated limitations related to the diagnosis of skin and soft-tissue infections. In two-thirds to three-quarters of cases, potentially useful descriptive information was missing, and in 70% (88/126), images were not appropriately focused. The authors developed a detailed checklist to help primary medical teams focus their differential diagnoses.²⁴ A recent pilot study found that supplementation of clinical information with a standardized questionnaire and thermal images improved the accuracy of cellulitis diagnosis. Using this method, there was no difference in accuracy between dermatology hospitalists and other board-certified dermatologists, supporting the notion that any dermatologist can fulfill this need successfully, even without specific inpatient experience.²⁵ Due to the high incidence and cost of cellulitis and related hospital admissions,²⁶ such an intervention could have a considerable financial and patient safety impact.

Final Thoughts

This last year brought many changes to the health care landscape, the recession of a global pandemic, and an increasingly complex health care delivery system. Inpatient dermatologists met these challenges by providing high-quality dermatologic care and practice-modifying research in the areas of severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, hospital readmission, telemedicine, and more, demonstrating the value of dermatologic expertise in the hospital setting.

Clinical Importance

Dendrocnide moroides is arguably the most brutal of stinging plants, even leading to death in dogs, horses, and humans in rare cases.^1-3 Commonly called gympie-gympie (based on its discovery by gold miners near the town of Gympie in Queensland, Australia), D moroides also has been referred to as the mulberrylike stinging tree or stinger.^2,4-6

Family and Nomenclature

The Australian stinging tree belongs to the family Urticaceae (known as the nettle family) within the order Rosales.^1,2,3,5 Urticaceae is derived from the Latin term urere (to burn)—an apt description of the clinical experience of patients with D moroides–induced urticaria.

Urticaceae includes 54 genera, comprising herbs, shrubs, small trees, and vines found predominantly in tropical regions. Dendrocnide comprises approximately 40 species, all commonly known in Australia as stinging trees.^2,7,8

Distribution

Dendrocnide moroides is found in the rainforests of Australia and Southeast Asia.² Because the plant has a strong need for sunlight and wind protection, it typically is found in light-filled gaps within the rainforest, in moist ravines, along the edges of creeks, and on land bordering the rainforest.^3,6

Appearance

Although D moroides is referred to as a tree, it is an understory shrub that typically grows to 3 m, with heart-shaped, serrated, dark green leaves that are 50-cm wide (Figure 1).⁶ The leaves are produced consistently through the year, with variable growth depending on the season.⁹

Reprinted with permission from Hurley.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

The plant is covered in what appears to be soft downy fur made up of trichomes (or plant hairs).^1,6 The density of the hairs on leaves decreases as they age.^2,9 The fruit, which is actually edible (if one is careful to avoid hairs), appears similar to red to dark purple raspberries growing on long stems.^5,6

Cutaneous Manifestations

Symptoms of contact with the stems and leaves of D moroides range from slight irritation to serious neurologic disorders, including neuropathy. The severity of the reaction depends on the person, how much skin was contacted, and how one came into contact with the plant.^1,5 Upon touch, there is an immediate reaction, with burning, urticaria, and edema. Pain increases, peaking 30 minutes later; then the pain slowly subsides.¹ Tachycardia and throbbing regional lymphadenopathy can occur for 1 to 4 hours.^1,6

Cutaneous Findings—Examination reveals immediate piloerection, erythema due to arteriolar dilation, and local swelling.² These findings may disappear after 1 hour or last as long as 24 hours.¹ Although objective signs may fade, subjective pain, pruritus, and burning can persist for months.³

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

After contact with the stems or leaves, the sharp trichomes become embedded in the skin, making them difficult to remove.¹ The toxins are contained in siliceous hairs that the human body cannot break down.³ Symptoms can be experienced for as long as 1 year after contact, especially when the skin is pressed firmly or washed with hot or cold water.^3,6 Because the plant’s hairs are shed continuously, being in close proximity to D moroides for longer than 20 minutes can lead to extreme sneezing, nosebleeds, and major respiratory damage from inhaling hairs.^1,6,9

The stinging hairs of D moroides differ from irritant hairs on other plants because they contain physiologically active substances. Stinging hairs are classified as either a hypodermic syringe, which expels liquid only, or as a tragia-type syringe, in which liquid and sharp crystals are injected.

The Australian stinging tree falls into the first of these 2 groups (Figure 2)¹; the sharp tip of the hair breaks on contact, leading to expulsion of the toxin into skin.^1,4 The hairs function as a defense against mammalian herbivores but typically have no impact on pests.¹ Nocturnal beetles and on occasion possums and red-legged pademelons dare to eat D moroides.^3,6

Republished under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0).&lt;i&gt;1&lt;/i&gt;

The Irritant

Initially, formic acid was proposed as the irritant chemical in D moroides¹; other candidates have included neurotransmitters, such as histamine, acetylcholine, and serotonin, as well as inorganic ions, such as potassium. These compounds may play a role but none explain the persistent sensory effects and years-long stable nature of the toxin.^1,4

The most likely culprit irritant is a member of a newly discovered family of neurotoxins, the gympietides. These knot-shaped chemicals, found in D moroides and some spider venoms, have the ability to activate voltage-gated sodium channels of cutaneous neurons and cause local cutaneous vasodilation by stimulating neurotransmitter release.⁴ These neurotoxins not only generate pain but also suppress the mechanism used to interrupt those pain signals.¹⁰ Synthesized gympietides can replicate the effects of natural contact, indicating that they are the primary active toxins. These toxins are ultrastable, thus producing lasting effects.¹

Although much is understood about the evolution and distribution of D moroides and the ecological role that it plays, there is still more to learn about the plant’s toxicology.

 

 

Prevention and Treatment

Prevention—Dendrocnide moroides dermatitis is best prevented by avoiding contact with the plant and related species, as well as wearing upper body clothing with long sleeves, pants, and boots, though plant hairs can still penetrate garments and sting.^2,3

Therapy—There is no reversal therapy of D moroides dermatitis but symptoms can be managed.⁴ For pain, analgesics, such as opioids, have been used; on occasion, however, pain is so intense that even morphine does not help.^4,10

Systemic or topical corticosteroids are the main therapy for many forms of plant-induced dermatitis because they are able to decrease cytokine production and stop lymphocyte production. Adding an oral antihistamine can alleviate histamine-mediated pruritus but not pruritus that is mediated by other chemicals.¹¹

Other methods of relieving symptoms of D moroides dermatitis have been proposed or reported anecdotally. Diluted hydrochloric acid can be applied to the skin to denature remaining toxin.⁴ The sap of Alocasia brisbanensis (the cunjevoi plant) can be rubbed on affected areas to provide a cooling effect, but do not allow A brisbanensis sap to enter the mouth, as it contains calcium oxalate, a toxic irritant found in dumb cane (Dieffenbachia species). The roots of the Australian stinging tree also can be ground and made into a paste, which is applied to the skin.³ However, given the stability of the toxin, we do not recommend these remedies.

Instead, heavy-duty masking tape or hot wax can be applied to remove plant hairs from the skin. The most successful method of removing plant hair is hair removal wax strips, which are considered an essential component of a first aid kit where D moroides is found.³

Clinical Importance

Dendrocnide moroides is arguably the most brutal of stinging plants, even leading to death in dogs, horses, and humans in rare cases.^1-3 Commonly called gympie-gympie (based on its discovery by gold miners near the town of Gympie in Queensland, Australia), D moroides also has been referred to as the mulberrylike stinging tree or stinger.^2,4-6

Family and Nomenclature

The Australian stinging tree belongs to the family Urticaceae (known as the nettle family) within the order Rosales.^1,2,3,5 Urticaceae is derived from the Latin term urere (to burn)—an apt description of the clinical experience of patients with D moroides–induced urticaria.

Urticaceae includes 54 genera, comprising herbs, shrubs, small trees, and vines found predominantly in tropical regions. Dendrocnide comprises approximately 40 species, all commonly known in Australia as stinging trees.^2,7,8

Distribution

Dendrocnide moroides is found in the rainforests of Australia and Southeast Asia.² Because the plant has a strong need for sunlight and wind protection, it typically is found in light-filled gaps within the rainforest, in moist ravines, along the edges of creeks, and on land bordering the rainforest.^3,6

Appearance

Although D moroides is referred to as a tree, it is an understory shrub that typically grows to 3 m, with heart-shaped, serrated, dark green leaves that are 50-cm wide (Figure 1).⁶ The leaves are produced consistently through the year, with variable growth depending on the season.⁹

Reprinted with permission from Hurley.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

The plant is covered in what appears to be soft downy fur made up of trichomes (or plant hairs).^1,6 The density of the hairs on leaves decreases as they age.^2,9 The fruit, which is actually edible (if one is careful to avoid hairs), appears similar to red to dark purple raspberries growing on long stems.^5,6

Cutaneous Manifestations

Symptoms of contact with the stems and leaves of D moroides range from slight irritation to serious neurologic disorders, including neuropathy. The severity of the reaction depends on the person, how much skin was contacted, and how one came into contact with the plant.^1,5 Upon touch, there is an immediate reaction, with burning, urticaria, and edema. Pain increases, peaking 30 minutes later; then the pain slowly subsides.¹ Tachycardia and throbbing regional lymphadenopathy can occur for 1 to 4 hours.^1,6

Cutaneous Findings—Examination reveals immediate piloerection, erythema due to arteriolar dilation, and local swelling.² These findings may disappear after 1 hour or last as long as 24 hours.¹ Although objective signs may fade, subjective pain, pruritus, and burning can persist for months.³

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

After contact with the stems or leaves, the sharp trichomes become embedded in the skin, making them difficult to remove.¹ The toxins are contained in siliceous hairs that the human body cannot break down.³ Symptoms can be experienced for as long as 1 year after contact, especially when the skin is pressed firmly or washed with hot or cold water.^3,6 Because the plant’s hairs are shed continuously, being in close proximity to D moroides for longer than 20 minutes can lead to extreme sneezing, nosebleeds, and major respiratory damage from inhaling hairs.^1,6,9

The stinging hairs of D moroides differ from irritant hairs on other plants because they contain physiologically active substances. Stinging hairs are classified as either a hypodermic syringe, which expels liquid only, or as a tragia-type syringe, in which liquid and sharp crystals are injected.

The Australian stinging tree falls into the first of these 2 groups (Figure 2)¹; the sharp tip of the hair breaks on contact, leading to expulsion of the toxin into skin.^1,4 The hairs function as a defense against mammalian herbivores but typically have no impact on pests.¹ Nocturnal beetles and on occasion possums and red-legged pademelons dare to eat D moroides.^3,6

Republished under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0).&lt;i&gt;1&lt;/i&gt;

The Irritant

Initially, formic acid was proposed as the irritant chemical in D moroides¹; other candidates have included neurotransmitters, such as histamine, acetylcholine, and serotonin, as well as inorganic ions, such as potassium. These compounds may play a role but none explain the persistent sensory effects and years-long stable nature of the toxin.^1,4

The most likely culprit irritant is a member of a newly discovered family of neurotoxins, the gympietides. These knot-shaped chemicals, found in D moroides and some spider venoms, have the ability to activate voltage-gated sodium channels of cutaneous neurons and cause local cutaneous vasodilation by stimulating neurotransmitter release.⁴ These neurotoxins not only generate pain but also suppress the mechanism used to interrupt those pain signals.¹⁰ Synthesized gympietides can replicate the effects of natural contact, indicating that they are the primary active toxins. These toxins are ultrastable, thus producing lasting effects.¹

Although much is understood about the evolution and distribution of D moroides and the ecological role that it plays, there is still more to learn about the plant’s toxicology.

 

 

Prevention and Treatment

Prevention—Dendrocnide moroides dermatitis is best prevented by avoiding contact with the plant and related species, as well as wearing upper body clothing with long sleeves, pants, and boots, though plant hairs can still penetrate garments and sting.^2,3

Therapy—There is no reversal therapy of D moroides dermatitis but symptoms can be managed.⁴ For pain, analgesics, such as opioids, have been used; on occasion, however, pain is so intense that even morphine does not help.^4,10

Systemic or topical corticosteroids are the main therapy for many forms of plant-induced dermatitis because they are able to decrease cytokine production and stop lymphocyte production. Adding an oral antihistamine can alleviate histamine-mediated pruritus but not pruritus that is mediated by other chemicals.¹¹

Other methods of relieving symptoms of D moroides dermatitis have been proposed or reported anecdotally. Diluted hydrochloric acid can be applied to the skin to denature remaining toxin.⁴ The sap of Alocasia brisbanensis (the cunjevoi plant) can be rubbed on affected areas to provide a cooling effect, but do not allow A brisbanensis sap to enter the mouth, as it contains calcium oxalate, a toxic irritant found in dumb cane (Dieffenbachia species). The roots of the Australian stinging tree also can be ground and made into a paste, which is applied to the skin.³ However, given the stability of the toxin, we do not recommend these remedies.

Instead, heavy-duty masking tape or hot wax can be applied to remove plant hairs from the skin. The most successful method of removing plant hair is hair removal wax strips, which are considered an essential component of a first aid kit where D moroides is found.³

Clinical Importance

Dendrocnide moroides is arguably the most brutal of stinging plants, even leading to death in dogs, horses, and humans in rare cases.^1-3 Commonly called gympie-gympie (based on its discovery by gold miners near the town of Gympie in Queensland, Australia), D moroides also has been referred to as the mulberrylike stinging tree or stinger.^2,4-6

Family and Nomenclature

The Australian stinging tree belongs to the family Urticaceae (known as the nettle family) within the order Rosales.^1,2,3,5 Urticaceae is derived from the Latin term urere (to burn)—an apt description of the clinical experience of patients with D moroides–induced urticaria.

Urticaceae includes 54 genera, comprising herbs, shrubs, small trees, and vines found predominantly in tropical regions. Dendrocnide comprises approximately 40 species, all commonly known in Australia as stinging trees.^2,7,8

Distribution

Dendrocnide moroides is found in the rainforests of Australia and Southeast Asia.² Because the plant has a strong need for sunlight and wind protection, it typically is found in light-filled gaps within the rainforest, in moist ravines, along the edges of creeks, and on land bordering the rainforest.^3,6

Appearance

Although D moroides is referred to as a tree, it is an understory shrub that typically grows to 3 m, with heart-shaped, serrated, dark green leaves that are 50-cm wide (Figure 1).⁶ The leaves are produced consistently through the year, with variable growth depending on the season.⁹

Reprinted with permission from Hurley.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

The plant is covered in what appears to be soft downy fur made up of trichomes (or plant hairs).^1,6 The density of the hairs on leaves decreases as they age.^2,9 The fruit, which is actually edible (if one is careful to avoid hairs), appears similar to red to dark purple raspberries growing on long stems.^5,6

Cutaneous Manifestations

Symptoms of contact with the stems and leaves of D moroides range from slight irritation to serious neurologic disorders, including neuropathy. The severity of the reaction depends on the person, how much skin was contacted, and how one came into contact with the plant.^1,5 Upon touch, there is an immediate reaction, with burning, urticaria, and edema. Pain increases, peaking 30 minutes later; then the pain slowly subsides.¹ Tachycardia and throbbing regional lymphadenopathy can occur for 1 to 4 hours.^1,6

Cutaneous Findings—Examination reveals immediate piloerection, erythema due to arteriolar dilation, and local swelling.² These findings may disappear after 1 hour or last as long as 24 hours.¹ Although objective signs may fade, subjective pain, pruritus, and burning can persist for months.³

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

After contact with the stems or leaves, the sharp trichomes become embedded in the skin, making them difficult to remove.¹ The toxins are contained in siliceous hairs that the human body cannot break down.³ Symptoms can be experienced for as long as 1 year after contact, especially when the skin is pressed firmly or washed with hot or cold water.^3,6 Because the plant’s hairs are shed continuously, being in close proximity to D moroides for longer than 20 minutes can lead to extreme sneezing, nosebleeds, and major respiratory damage from inhaling hairs.^1,6,9

The stinging hairs of D moroides differ from irritant hairs on other plants because they contain physiologically active substances. Stinging hairs are classified as either a hypodermic syringe, which expels liquid only, or as a tragia-type syringe, in which liquid and sharp crystals are injected.

The Australian stinging tree falls into the first of these 2 groups (Figure 2)¹; the sharp tip of the hair breaks on contact, leading to expulsion of the toxin into skin.^1,4 The hairs function as a defense against mammalian herbivores but typically have no impact on pests.¹ Nocturnal beetles and on occasion possums and red-legged pademelons dare to eat D moroides.^3,6

Republished under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0).&lt;i&gt;1&lt;/i&gt;

The Irritant

Initially, formic acid was proposed as the irritant chemical in D moroides¹; other candidates have included neurotransmitters, such as histamine, acetylcholine, and serotonin, as well as inorganic ions, such as potassium. These compounds may play a role but none explain the persistent sensory effects and years-long stable nature of the toxin.^1,4

The most likely culprit irritant is a member of a newly discovered family of neurotoxins, the gympietides. These knot-shaped chemicals, found in D moroides and some spider venoms, have the ability to activate voltage-gated sodium channels of cutaneous neurons and cause local cutaneous vasodilation by stimulating neurotransmitter release.⁴ These neurotoxins not only generate pain but also suppress the mechanism used to interrupt those pain signals.¹⁰ Synthesized gympietides can replicate the effects of natural contact, indicating that they are the primary active toxins. These toxins are ultrastable, thus producing lasting effects.¹

Although much is understood about the evolution and distribution of D moroides and the ecological role that it plays, there is still more to learn about the plant’s toxicology.

 

 

Prevention and Treatment

Prevention—Dendrocnide moroides dermatitis is best prevented by avoiding contact with the plant and related species, as well as wearing upper body clothing with long sleeves, pants, and boots, though plant hairs can still penetrate garments and sting.^2,3

Therapy—There is no reversal therapy of D moroides dermatitis but symptoms can be managed.⁴ For pain, analgesics, such as opioids, have been used; on occasion, however, pain is so intense that even morphine does not help.^4,10

Systemic or topical corticosteroids are the main therapy for many forms of plant-induced dermatitis because they are able to decrease cytokine production and stop lymphocyte production. Adding an oral antihistamine can alleviate histamine-mediated pruritus but not pruritus that is mediated by other chemicals.¹¹

Other methods of relieving symptoms of D moroides dermatitis have been proposed or reported anecdotally. Diluted hydrochloric acid can be applied to the skin to denature remaining toxin.⁴ The sap of Alocasia brisbanensis (the cunjevoi plant) can be rubbed on affected areas to provide a cooling effect, but do not allow A brisbanensis sap to enter the mouth, as it contains calcium oxalate, a toxic irritant found in dumb cane (Dieffenbachia species). The roots of the Australian stinging tree also can be ground and made into a paste, which is applied to the skin.³ However, given the stability of the toxin, we do not recommend these remedies.

Instead, heavy-duty masking tape or hot wax can be applied to remove plant hairs from the skin. The most successful method of removing plant hair is hair removal wax strips, which are considered an essential component of a first aid kit where D moroides is found.³

Practice Gap

Proper suture selection is imperative for appropriate wound healing to minimize the risk for infection and inflammation and to reduce scarring. In Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), suture selection should be given high consideration in patients with skin of color.¹ Using the right type of suture and wound closure technique can lead to favorable aesthetic outcomes by preventing postoperative postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) and keloids. Data on the choice of suture material in patients with skin of color are limited.

Suture selection depends on a variety of factors including but not limited to the location of the wound on the body, risk for infection, cost, availability, and the personal preference and experience of the MMS surgeon. During the COVID-19 pandemic, suturepreference among dermatologic surgeons shifted to fast-absorbing gut sutures,² offering alternatives to synthetic monofilament polypropylene and nylon sutures. Absorbable sutures reduced the need for in-person follow-up visits without increasing the incidence of postoperative complications.

Despite these benefits, research suggests that natural absorbable gut sutures induce cutaneous inflammation and should be avoided in patients with skin of color.^1,3,4 Nonabsorbable sutures are less reactive, reducing PIH after MMS in patients with skin of color.

Tools and Technique

Use of nonabsorbable stitches is a practical solution to reduce the risk for inflammation in patients with skin of color. Increased inflammation can lead to PIH and increase the risk for keloids in this patient population. Some patients will experience PIH after a surgical procedure regardless of the sutures used to repair the closure; however, one of our goals with patients with skin of color undergoing MMS is to reduce the inflammatory risk that could lead to PIH to ensure optimal aesthetic outcomes.

A middle-aged African woman with darker skin and a history of developing PIH after trauma to the skin presented to our clinic for MMS of a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans on the upper abdomen. We used a simple running suture with 4-0 nylon to close the surgical wound. We avoided fast-absorbing gut sutures because they have high tissue reactivity^1,4; use of sutures with low tissue reactivity, such as nylon and polypropylene, decreases the risk for inflammation without compromising alignment of wound edges and overall cosmesis of the repair. Prolene also is cost-effective and presents a decreased risk for wound dehiscence.⁵ After cauterizing the wound, we placed multiple synthetic absorbable sutures first to close the wound. We then did a double-running suture of nonabsorbable monofilament suture to reapproximate the epidermal edges with minimal tension. We placed 2 sets of running stitches to minimize the risk for dehiscence along the scar.

The patient was required to return for removal of the nonabsorbable sutures; this postoperative visit was covered by health insurance at no additional cost to the patient. In comparison, long-term repeat visits to treat PIH with a laser or chemical peel would have been more costly. Given that treatment of PIH is considered cosmetic, laser treatment would have been priced at several hundred dollars per session at our institution, and the patient would likely have had a copay for a pretreatment lightening cream such as hydroquinone. Our patient had a favorable cosmetic outcome and reported no or minimal evidence of PIH months after the procedure.

Patients should be instructed to apply petrolatum twice daily, use sun-protective clothing, and cover sutures to minimize exposure to the sun and prevent crusting of the wound. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation can be proactively treated postoperatively with topical hydroquinone, which was not needed in our patient.

Practice Implications

Although some studies suggest that there are no cosmetic differences between absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures, the effect of suture type in patients with skin of color undergoing MMS often is unreported or is not studied.^6,7 The high reactivity and cutaneous inflammation associated with absorbable gut sutures are important considerations in this patient population.

In patients with skin of color undergoing MMS, we use nonabsorbable epidermal sutures such as nylon and Prolene because of their low reactivity and association with favorable aesthetic outcomes. Nonabsorbable sutures can be safely used in patients of all ages who are undergoing MMS under local anesthesia.

An exception would be the use of the absorbable suture Monocryl (J&J MedTech) in patients with skin of color who need a running subcuticular wound closure because it has low tissue reactivity and maintains high tensile strength. Monocryl has been shown to create less-reactive scars, which decreases the risk for keloids.^8,9

More clinical studies are needed to assess the increased susceptibility to PIH in patients with skin of color when using absorbable gut sutures.

Practice Gap

Proper suture selection is imperative for appropriate wound healing to minimize the risk for infection and inflammation and to reduce scarring. In Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), suture selection should be given high consideration in patients with skin of color.¹ Using the right type of suture and wound closure technique can lead to favorable aesthetic outcomes by preventing postoperative postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) and keloids. Data on the choice of suture material in patients with skin of color are limited.

Suture selection depends on a variety of factors including but not limited to the location of the wound on the body, risk for infection, cost, availability, and the personal preference and experience of the MMS surgeon. During the COVID-19 pandemic, suturepreference among dermatologic surgeons shifted to fast-absorbing gut sutures,² offering alternatives to synthetic monofilament polypropylene and nylon sutures. Absorbable sutures reduced the need for in-person follow-up visits without increasing the incidence of postoperative complications.

Despite these benefits, research suggests that natural absorbable gut sutures induce cutaneous inflammation and should be avoided in patients with skin of color.^1,3,4 Nonabsorbable sutures are less reactive, reducing PIH after MMS in patients with skin of color.

Tools and Technique

Use of nonabsorbable stitches is a practical solution to reduce the risk for inflammation in patients with skin of color. Increased inflammation can lead to PIH and increase the risk for keloids in this patient population. Some patients will experience PIH after a surgical procedure regardless of the sutures used to repair the closure; however, one of our goals with patients with skin of color undergoing MMS is to reduce the inflammatory risk that could lead to PIH to ensure optimal aesthetic outcomes.

A middle-aged African woman with darker skin and a history of developing PIH after trauma to the skin presented to our clinic for MMS of a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans on the upper abdomen. We used a simple running suture with 4-0 nylon to close the surgical wound. We avoided fast-absorbing gut sutures because they have high tissue reactivity^1,4; use of sutures with low tissue reactivity, such as nylon and polypropylene, decreases the risk for inflammation without compromising alignment of wound edges and overall cosmesis of the repair. Prolene also is cost-effective and presents a decreased risk for wound dehiscence.⁵ After cauterizing the wound, we placed multiple synthetic absorbable sutures first to close the wound. We then did a double-running suture of nonabsorbable monofilament suture to reapproximate the epidermal edges with minimal tension. We placed 2 sets of running stitches to minimize the risk for dehiscence along the scar.

The patient was required to return for removal of the nonabsorbable sutures; this postoperative visit was covered by health insurance at no additional cost to the patient. In comparison, long-term repeat visits to treat PIH with a laser or chemical peel would have been more costly. Given that treatment of PIH is considered cosmetic, laser treatment would have been priced at several hundred dollars per session at our institution, and the patient would likely have had a copay for a pretreatment lightening cream such as hydroquinone. Our patient had a favorable cosmetic outcome and reported no or minimal evidence of PIH months after the procedure.

Patients should be instructed to apply petrolatum twice daily, use sun-protective clothing, and cover sutures to minimize exposure to the sun and prevent crusting of the wound. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation can be proactively treated postoperatively with topical hydroquinone, which was not needed in our patient.

Practice Implications

Although some studies suggest that there are no cosmetic differences between absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures, the effect of suture type in patients with skin of color undergoing MMS often is unreported or is not studied.^6,7 The high reactivity and cutaneous inflammation associated with absorbable gut sutures are important considerations in this patient population.

In patients with skin of color undergoing MMS, we use nonabsorbable epidermal sutures such as nylon and Prolene because of their low reactivity and association with favorable aesthetic outcomes. Nonabsorbable sutures can be safely used in patients of all ages who are undergoing MMS under local anesthesia.

An exception would be the use of the absorbable suture Monocryl (J&J MedTech) in patients with skin of color who need a running subcuticular wound closure because it has low tissue reactivity and maintains high tensile strength. Monocryl has been shown to create less-reactive scars, which decreases the risk for keloids.^8,9

More clinical studies are needed to assess the increased susceptibility to PIH in patients with skin of color when using absorbable gut sutures.

Practice Gap

Proper suture selection is imperative for appropriate wound healing to minimize the risk for infection and inflammation and to reduce scarring. In Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), suture selection should be given high consideration in patients with skin of color.¹ Using the right type of suture and wound closure technique can lead to favorable aesthetic outcomes by preventing postoperative postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) and keloids. Data on the choice of suture material in patients with skin of color are limited.

Suture selection depends on a variety of factors including but not limited to the location of the wound on the body, risk for infection, cost, availability, and the personal preference and experience of the MMS surgeon. During the COVID-19 pandemic, suturepreference among dermatologic surgeons shifted to fast-absorbing gut sutures,² offering alternatives to synthetic monofilament polypropylene and nylon sutures. Absorbable sutures reduced the need for in-person follow-up visits without increasing the incidence of postoperative complications.

Despite these benefits, research suggests that natural absorbable gut sutures induce cutaneous inflammation and should be avoided in patients with skin of color.^1,3,4 Nonabsorbable sutures are less reactive, reducing PIH after MMS in patients with skin of color.

Tools and Technique

Use of nonabsorbable stitches is a practical solution to reduce the risk for inflammation in patients with skin of color. Increased inflammation can lead to PIH and increase the risk for keloids in this patient population. Some patients will experience PIH after a surgical procedure regardless of the sutures used to repair the closure; however, one of our goals with patients with skin of color undergoing MMS is to reduce the inflammatory risk that could lead to PIH to ensure optimal aesthetic outcomes.

A middle-aged African woman with darker skin and a history of developing PIH after trauma to the skin presented to our clinic for MMS of a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans on the upper abdomen. We used a simple running suture with 4-0 nylon to close the surgical wound. We avoided fast-absorbing gut sutures because they have high tissue reactivity^1,4; use of sutures with low tissue reactivity, such as nylon and polypropylene, decreases the risk for inflammation without compromising alignment of wound edges and overall cosmesis of the repair. Prolene also is cost-effective and presents a decreased risk for wound dehiscence.⁵ After cauterizing the wound, we placed multiple synthetic absorbable sutures first to close the wound. We then did a double-running suture of nonabsorbable monofilament suture to reapproximate the epidermal edges with minimal tension. We placed 2 sets of running stitches to minimize the risk for dehiscence along the scar.

The patient was required to return for removal of the nonabsorbable sutures; this postoperative visit was covered by health insurance at no additional cost to the patient. In comparison, long-term repeat visits to treat PIH with a laser or chemical peel would have been more costly. Given that treatment of PIH is considered cosmetic, laser treatment would have been priced at several hundred dollars per session at our institution, and the patient would likely have had a copay for a pretreatment lightening cream such as hydroquinone. Our patient had a favorable cosmetic outcome and reported no or minimal evidence of PIH months after the procedure.

Patients should be instructed to apply petrolatum twice daily, use sun-protective clothing, and cover sutures to minimize exposure to the sun and prevent crusting of the wound. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation can be proactively treated postoperatively with topical hydroquinone, which was not needed in our patient.

Practice Implications

Although some studies suggest that there are no cosmetic differences between absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures, the effect of suture type in patients with skin of color undergoing MMS often is unreported or is not studied.^6,7 The high reactivity and cutaneous inflammation associated with absorbable gut sutures are important considerations in this patient population.

In patients with skin of color undergoing MMS, we use nonabsorbable epidermal sutures such as nylon and Prolene because of their low reactivity and association with favorable aesthetic outcomes. Nonabsorbable sutures can be safely used in patients of all ages who are undergoing MMS under local anesthesia.

An exception would be the use of the absorbable suture Monocryl (J&J MedTech) in patients with skin of color who need a running subcuticular wound closure because it has low tissue reactivity and maintains high tensile strength. Monocryl has been shown to create less-reactive scars, which decreases the risk for keloids.^8,9

More clinical studies are needed to assess the increased susceptibility to PIH in patients with skin of color when using absorbable gut sutures.

Nonthermal atmospheric plasma (NTAP)(or cold atmospheric plasma [CAP]) is a rapidly developing treatment modality for a wide range of dermatologic conditions. Plasma (or ionized gas) refers to a state of matter composed of electrons, protons, and neutral atoms that generate reactive oxygen and nitrogen species.¹ Plasma previously was created using thermal energy, but recent advances have allowed the creation of plasma using atmospheric pressure and room temperature; thus, NTAP can be used without causing damage to living tissue through heat.¹ Plasma technology varies greatly, but it generally can be classified as either direct or indirect therapy; direct therapy uses the human body as an electrode, whereas indirect therapy creates plasma through the interaction between 2 electrode devices.^1,2 When used on the skin, important dose-dependent relationships have been observed, with CAP application longer than 2 minutes being associated with increased keratinocyte and fibroblast apoptosis.² Thus, CAP can cause diverse changes to the skin depending on application time and methodology. At adequate yet low concentrations, plasma can promote fibroblast proliferation and upregulate genes involved in collagen and transforming growth factor synthesis.¹ Additionally, the reactive oxygen and nitrogen species created by NTAP have been shown to inactivate microorganisms through the destruction of biofilms, lead to diminished immune cell infiltration and cytokine release in autoimmune dermatologic conditions, and exert antitumor properties through cellular DNA damage.^1-3 In dermatology, these properties can be harvested to promote wound healing at low doses and the treatment of proliferative skin conditions at high doses.¹

Because of its novelty, the safety profile of NTAP is still under investigation, but preliminary studies are promising and show no damage to the skin barrier when excessive plasma exposure is avoided.⁴ However, dose- and time-dependent damage to cells has been shown. As a result, the exact dose of plasma considered safe is highly variable depending on the vessel, technique, and user, and future clinical research is needed to guide this methodology.⁴ Additionally, CAP has been shown to cause little pain at the skin surface and may lead to decreased levels of pain in healing wound sites.⁵ Given this promising safety profile and minimal discomfort to patients, NTAP technology remains promising for use in pediatric dermatology, but there are limited data to characterize its potential use in this population. In this systematic review, we aimed to elucidate reported applications of NTAP for skin conditions in children and discuss the trajectory of this technology in the future of pediatric dermatology.

Methodology

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating NTAP technology in pediatric populations using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. A search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science articles was conducted in April 2023 using the terms nonthermal atmospheric plasma or cold atmospheric plasma. All English-language articles that described the use of NTAP as a treatment in pediatric populations or articles that described NTAP use in the treatment of common conditions in this patient group were included based on a review of the article titles and abstracts by 2 independent reviewers, followed by full-text review of relevant articles (M.G., C.L.). Any discrepancies in eligible articles were settled by a third independent researcher (M.V.). One hundred twenty studies were identified, and 95 were screened for inclusion; 9 studies met inclusion criteria and were summarized in this review.

Results

A total of 9 studies were included in this review: 3 describing the success of NTAP in pediatric populations^6-8 and 6 describing the potential success of NTAP for dermatologic conditions commonly seen in children (Table).^9-14

Studies Describing Success of NTAP—Three clinical reports described the efficacy of NTAP in pediatric dermatology. A case series from 2020 showed full clearance of warts in 100% of patients (n=5) with a 0% recurrence rate when NTAP treatment was applied for 2 minutes to each lesion during each treatment session with the electrode held 1 mm from the lesional surface.⁶ Each patient was followed up at 3 to 4 weeks, and treatment was repeated if lesions persisted. Patients reported no pain during the procedure, and no adverse effects were noted over the course of treatment.⁶ Second, a case report described full clearance of diaper dermatitis with no recurrence after 6 months following 6 treatments with NTAP in a 14-month-old girl.⁷ After treatment with econazole nitrate cream, oral antibiotics, and prednisone failed, CAP treatment was initiated. Each treatment lasted 15 minutes with 3-day time intervals between each of the 6 treatments. There were no adverse events or recurrence of rash at 6-month follow-up.⁷ A final case report described full clearance of molluscum contagiosum (MC), with no recurrence after 2 months following 4 treatments with NTAP in a 12-year-old boy.⁸ The patient had untreated MC on the face, neck, shoulder, and thighs. Lesions of the face were treated with CAP, while the other sites were treated with cantharidin using a 0.7% collodion-based solution. Four CAP treatments were performed at 1-month intervals, with CAP applied 1 mm from the lesional surfaces in a circular pattern for 2 minutes. At follow-up 2 months after the final treatment, the patient had no adverse effects and showed no pigmentary changes or scarring.⁸

Studies Describing the Potential Success of NTAP—Beyond these studies, limited research has been done on NTAP in pediatric populations. The Table summarizes 6 additional studies completed with promising treatment results for dermatologic conditions commonly seen in children: striae distensae, keloids, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, inverse psoriasis, and acne vulgaris. Across all reports and studies, patients showed significant improvement in their dermatologic conditions following the use of NTAP technology with limited adverse effects reported (P<.05). Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai⁹ studied the use of CAP for the treatment of striae distensae. They recruited 23 patients and treated half the body with CAP biweekly for 5 sessions; the other half was left untreated. At follow-up 30 days after the final treatment, striae distensae had improved for both patient and observer assessment scores.⁹ Another study performed by Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai¹⁰ looked at the efficacy of CAP in treating keloids. They recruited 18 patients, and keloid scars were treated in halves—one half treated with CAP biweekly for 5 sessions and the other left untreated. At follow-up 30 days after the final treatment, keloids significantly improved in color, melanin, texture, and hemoglobin based on assessment by the Antera 3D imaging system (Miravex Limited)(P<.05).¹⁰

Kim et al¹¹ studied the efficacy of CAP for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in 22 patients. Each patient had mild to moderate atopic dermatitis that had not been treated with topical agents or antibiotics for at least 2 weeks prior to beginning the study. Additionally, only patients with symmetric lesions—meaning only patients with lesions on both sides of the anatomical extremities—were included. Each patient then received CAP on 1 symmetric lesion and placebo on the other. Cold atmospheric plasma treatment was done 5 mm away from the lesion, and each treatment lasted for 5 minutes. Treatments were done at weeks 0, 1, and 2, with follow-up 4 weeks after the final treatment. The clinical severity of disease was assessed at weeks 0, 1, 2, and 4. Results showed that at week 4, the mean (SD) modified Atopic Dermatitis Antecubital Severity score decreased from 33.73 (21.21) at week 0 to 13.12 (15.92). Additionally, the pruritic visual analog scale showed significant improvement with treatment vs baseline (P≤.0001).¹¹

Two studies examined how NTAP can be used in the treatment of psoriasis. First, Gareri et al¹² used CAP to treat a psoriatic plaque in a 20-year-old woman. These plaques on the left hand previously had been unresponsive to topical psoriasis treatments. The patient received 2 treatments with CAP on days 0 and 3; at 14 days, the plaque completely resolved with an itch score of 0.¹² Next, Zheng et al¹³ treated 2 patients with NTAP for inverse psoriasis. The first patient was a 26-year-old woman with plaques in the axilla and buttocks as well as inframammary lesions that failed to respond to treatment with topicals and vitamin D analogues. She received CAP treatments 2 to 3 times weekly for 5 total treatments with application to each region occurring 1 mm from the skin surface. The lesions completely resolved with no recurrence at 6 weeks. The second patient was a 38-year-old woman with inverse psoriasis in the axilla and groin; she received treatment every 3 days for 8 total treatments, which led to complete remission, with no recurrence noted at 1 month.¹³

Arisi et al¹⁴ used NTAP to treat acne vulgaris in 2 patients. The first patient was a 24-year-old man with moderate acne on the face that did not improve with topicals or oral antibiotics. The patient received 5 CAP treatments with no adverse events noted. The patient discontinued treatment on his own, but the number of lesions decreased after the fifth treatment. The second patient was a 21-year-old woman with moderate facial acne that failed to respond to treatment with topicals and oral tetracycline. The patient received 8 CAP treatments and experienced a reduction in the number of lesions during treatment. There were no adverse events, and improvement was maintained at 3-month follow-up.¹⁴

Comment

Although the use of NTAP in pediatric dermatology is scarcely described in the literature, the technology will certainly have applications in the future treatment of a wide variety of pediatric disorders. In addition to the clinical success shown in several studies,^6-14 this technology has been shown to cause minimal damage to skin when application time is minimized. One study conducted on ex vivo skin showed that NTAP technology can safely be used for up to 2 minutes without major DNA damage.¹⁵ Through its diverse mechanisms of action, NTAP can induce modification of proteins and cell membranes in a noninvasive manner.² In conditions with impaired barrier function, such as atopic and diaper dermatitis, studies in mouse models have shown improvement in lesions via upregulation of mesencephalic astrocyte-derived neurotrophic factor that contributes to decreased inflammation and cell apoptosis.¹⁶ Additionally, the generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species has been shown to decrease Staphylococcus aureus colonization to improve atopic dermatitis lesions in patients.¹¹

Many other proposed benefits of NTAP in dermatologic disease also have been proposed. Nonthermal atmospheric plasma has been shown to increase messenger RNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6) and upregulate type III collagen production in early stages of wound healing.¹⁷ Furthermore, NTAP has been shown to stimulate nuclear factor erythroid 2–related pathways involved in antioxidant production in keratinocytes, further promoting wound healing.¹⁸ Additionally, CAP has been shown to increase expression of caspases and induce mitochondrial dysfunction that promotes cell death in different cancer cell lines.¹⁹ It is clear that the exact breadth of NTAP’s biochemical effects are unknown, but the current literature shows promise for its use in cutaneous healing and cancer treatment.

Beyond its diverse applications, treatment with NTAP yields a unique advantage to pharmacologic therapies in that there is no risk for medication interactions or risk for pharmacologic adverse effects. Cantharidin is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration but commonly is used to treat MC. It is a blister beetle extract that causes a blister to form when applied to the skin. When orally ingested, the drug is toxic to the gastrointestinal tract and kidneys because of its phosphodiesterase inhibition, a feared complication in pediatric patients who may inadvertently ingest it during treatment.²⁰ This utility extends beyond MC, such as the beneficial outcomes described by Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai¹⁰ in using NTAP for keloid scars. Treatment with NTAP may replace triamcinolone injections, which are commonly associated with skin atrophy and ulceration. In addition, NTAP application to the skin has been reported to be relatively painless.⁵ Thus, NTAP maintains a distinct advantage over other commonly used nonpharmacologic treatment options, including curettage and cryosurgery. Curettage has widely been noted to be traumatic for the patient, may be more likely to leave a mark, and is prone to user error.²⁰ Cryosurgery is a common form of treatment for MC because it is cost-effective and has good cosmetic results; however, it is more painful than cantharidin or anesthetized curettage.²¹ Treatment with NTAP is an emerging therapeutic tool with an expanding role in the treatment of dermatologic patients because it provides advantages over many standard therapies due to its minimal side-effect profile involving pain and nonpharmacologic nature.

Limitations of this report include exclusion of non–English-language articles and lack of control or comparison groups to standard therapies across studies. Additionally, reports of NTAP success occurred in many conditions that are self-limited and may have resolved on their own. Regardless, we aimed to summarize how NTAP currently is being used in pediatric populations and highlight its potential uses moving forward. Given its promising safety profile and painless nature, future clinical trials should prioritize the investigation of NTAP use in common pediatric dermatologic conditions to determine if they are equal or superior to current standards of care.

Nonthermal atmospheric plasma (NTAP)(or cold atmospheric plasma [CAP]) is a rapidly developing treatment modality for a wide range of dermatologic conditions. Plasma (or ionized gas) refers to a state of matter composed of electrons, protons, and neutral atoms that generate reactive oxygen and nitrogen species.¹ Plasma previously was created using thermal energy, but recent advances have allowed the creation of plasma using atmospheric pressure and room temperature; thus, NTAP can be used without causing damage to living tissue through heat.¹ Plasma technology varies greatly, but it generally can be classified as either direct or indirect therapy; direct therapy uses the human body as an electrode, whereas indirect therapy creates plasma through the interaction between 2 electrode devices.^1,2 When used on the skin, important dose-dependent relationships have been observed, with CAP application longer than 2 minutes being associated with increased keratinocyte and fibroblast apoptosis.² Thus, CAP can cause diverse changes to the skin depending on application time and methodology. At adequate yet low concentrations, plasma can promote fibroblast proliferation and upregulate genes involved in collagen and transforming growth factor synthesis.¹ Additionally, the reactive oxygen and nitrogen species created by NTAP have been shown to inactivate microorganisms through the destruction of biofilms, lead to diminished immune cell infiltration and cytokine release in autoimmune dermatologic conditions, and exert antitumor properties through cellular DNA damage.^1-3 In dermatology, these properties can be harvested to promote wound healing at low doses and the treatment of proliferative skin conditions at high doses.¹

Because of its novelty, the safety profile of NTAP is still under investigation, but preliminary studies are promising and show no damage to the skin barrier when excessive plasma exposure is avoided.⁴ However, dose- and time-dependent damage to cells has been shown. As a result, the exact dose of plasma considered safe is highly variable depending on the vessel, technique, and user, and future clinical research is needed to guide this methodology.⁴ Additionally, CAP has been shown to cause little pain at the skin surface and may lead to decreased levels of pain in healing wound sites.⁵ Given this promising safety profile and minimal discomfort to patients, NTAP technology remains promising for use in pediatric dermatology, but there are limited data to characterize its potential use in this population. In this systematic review, we aimed to elucidate reported applications of NTAP for skin conditions in children and discuss the trajectory of this technology in the future of pediatric dermatology.

Methodology

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating NTAP technology in pediatric populations using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. A search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science articles was conducted in April 2023 using the terms nonthermal atmospheric plasma or cold atmospheric plasma. All English-language articles that described the use of NTAP as a treatment in pediatric populations or articles that described NTAP use in the treatment of common conditions in this patient group were included based on a review of the article titles and abstracts by 2 independent reviewers, followed by full-text review of relevant articles (M.G., C.L.). Any discrepancies in eligible articles were settled by a third independent researcher (M.V.). One hundred twenty studies were identified, and 95 were screened for inclusion; 9 studies met inclusion criteria and were summarized in this review.

Results

A total of 9 studies were included in this review: 3 describing the success of NTAP in pediatric populations^6-8 and 6 describing the potential success of NTAP for dermatologic conditions commonly seen in children (Table).^9-14

Studies Describing Success of NTAP—Three clinical reports described the efficacy of NTAP in pediatric dermatology. A case series from 2020 showed full clearance of warts in 100% of patients (n=5) with a 0% recurrence rate when NTAP treatment was applied for 2 minutes to each lesion during each treatment session with the electrode held 1 mm from the lesional surface.⁶ Each patient was followed up at 3 to 4 weeks, and treatment was repeated if lesions persisted. Patients reported no pain during the procedure, and no adverse effects were noted over the course of treatment.⁶ Second, a case report described full clearance of diaper dermatitis with no recurrence after 6 months following 6 treatments with NTAP in a 14-month-old girl.⁷ After treatment with econazole nitrate cream, oral antibiotics, and prednisone failed, CAP treatment was initiated. Each treatment lasted 15 minutes with 3-day time intervals between each of the 6 treatments. There were no adverse events or recurrence of rash at 6-month follow-up.⁷ A final case report described full clearance of molluscum contagiosum (MC), with no recurrence after 2 months following 4 treatments with NTAP in a 12-year-old boy.⁸ The patient had untreated MC on the face, neck, shoulder, and thighs. Lesions of the face were treated with CAP, while the other sites were treated with cantharidin using a 0.7% collodion-based solution. Four CAP treatments were performed at 1-month intervals, with CAP applied 1 mm from the lesional surfaces in a circular pattern for 2 minutes. At follow-up 2 months after the final treatment, the patient had no adverse effects and showed no pigmentary changes or scarring.⁸

Studies Describing the Potential Success of NTAP—Beyond these studies, limited research has been done on NTAP in pediatric populations. The Table summarizes 6 additional studies completed with promising treatment results for dermatologic conditions commonly seen in children: striae distensae, keloids, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, inverse psoriasis, and acne vulgaris. Across all reports and studies, patients showed significant improvement in their dermatologic conditions following the use of NTAP technology with limited adverse effects reported (P<.05). Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai⁹ studied the use of CAP for the treatment of striae distensae. They recruited 23 patients and treated half the body with CAP biweekly for 5 sessions; the other half was left untreated. At follow-up 30 days after the final treatment, striae distensae had improved for both patient and observer assessment scores.⁹ Another study performed by Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai¹⁰ looked at the efficacy of CAP in treating keloids. They recruited 18 patients, and keloid scars were treated in halves—one half treated with CAP biweekly for 5 sessions and the other left untreated. At follow-up 30 days after the final treatment, keloids significantly improved in color, melanin, texture, and hemoglobin based on assessment by the Antera 3D imaging system (Miravex Limited)(P<.05).¹⁰

Kim et al¹¹ studied the efficacy of CAP for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in 22 patients. Each patient had mild to moderate atopic dermatitis that had not been treated with topical agents or antibiotics for at least 2 weeks prior to beginning the study. Additionally, only patients with symmetric lesions—meaning only patients with lesions on both sides of the anatomical extremities—were included. Each patient then received CAP on 1 symmetric lesion and placebo on the other. Cold atmospheric plasma treatment was done 5 mm away from the lesion, and each treatment lasted for 5 minutes. Treatments were done at weeks 0, 1, and 2, with follow-up 4 weeks after the final treatment. The clinical severity of disease was assessed at weeks 0, 1, 2, and 4. Results showed that at week 4, the mean (SD) modified Atopic Dermatitis Antecubital Severity score decreased from 33.73 (21.21) at week 0 to 13.12 (15.92). Additionally, the pruritic visual analog scale showed significant improvement with treatment vs baseline (P≤.0001).¹¹

Two studies examined how NTAP can be used in the treatment of psoriasis. First, Gareri et al¹² used CAP to treat a psoriatic plaque in a 20-year-old woman. These plaques on the left hand previously had been unresponsive to topical psoriasis treatments. The patient received 2 treatments with CAP on days 0 and 3; at 14 days, the plaque completely resolved with an itch score of 0.¹² Next, Zheng et al¹³ treated 2 patients with NTAP for inverse psoriasis. The first patient was a 26-year-old woman with plaques in the axilla and buttocks as well as inframammary lesions that failed to respond to treatment with topicals and vitamin D analogues. She received CAP treatments 2 to 3 times weekly for 5 total treatments with application to each region occurring 1 mm from the skin surface. The lesions completely resolved with no recurrence at 6 weeks. The second patient was a 38-year-old woman with inverse psoriasis in the axilla and groin; she received treatment every 3 days for 8 total treatments, which led to complete remission, with no recurrence noted at 1 month.¹³

Arisi et al¹⁴ used NTAP to treat acne vulgaris in 2 patients. The first patient was a 24-year-old man with moderate acne on the face that did not improve with topicals or oral antibiotics. The patient received 5 CAP treatments with no adverse events noted. The patient discontinued treatment on his own, but the number of lesions decreased after the fifth treatment. The second patient was a 21-year-old woman with moderate facial acne that failed to respond to treatment with topicals and oral tetracycline. The patient received 8 CAP treatments and experienced a reduction in the number of lesions during treatment. There were no adverse events, and improvement was maintained at 3-month follow-up.¹⁴

Comment

Although the use of NTAP in pediatric dermatology is scarcely described in the literature, the technology will certainly have applications in the future treatment of a wide variety of pediatric disorders. In addition to the clinical success shown in several studies,^6-14 this technology has been shown to cause minimal damage to skin when application time is minimized. One study conducted on ex vivo skin showed that NTAP technology can safely be used for up to 2 minutes without major DNA damage.¹⁵ Through its diverse mechanisms of action, NTAP can induce modification of proteins and cell membranes in a noninvasive manner.² In conditions with impaired barrier function, such as atopic and diaper dermatitis, studies in mouse models have shown improvement in lesions via upregulation of mesencephalic astrocyte-derived neurotrophic factor that contributes to decreased inflammation and cell apoptosis.¹⁶ Additionally, the generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species has been shown to decrease Staphylococcus aureus colonization to improve atopic dermatitis lesions in patients.¹¹

Many other proposed benefits of NTAP in dermatologic disease also have been proposed. Nonthermal atmospheric plasma has been shown to increase messenger RNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6) and upregulate type III collagen production in early stages of wound healing.¹⁷ Furthermore, NTAP has been shown to stimulate nuclear factor erythroid 2–related pathways involved in antioxidant production in keratinocytes, further promoting wound healing.¹⁸ Additionally, CAP has been shown to increase expression of caspases and induce mitochondrial dysfunction that promotes cell death in different cancer cell lines.¹⁹ It is clear that the exact breadth of NTAP’s biochemical effects are unknown, but the current literature shows promise for its use in cutaneous healing and cancer treatment.

Beyond its diverse applications, treatment with NTAP yields a unique advantage to pharmacologic therapies in that there is no risk for medication interactions or risk for pharmacologic adverse effects. Cantharidin is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration but commonly is used to treat MC. It is a blister beetle extract that causes a blister to form when applied to the skin. When orally ingested, the drug is toxic to the gastrointestinal tract and kidneys because of its phosphodiesterase inhibition, a feared complication in pediatric patients who may inadvertently ingest it during treatment.²⁰ This utility extends beyond MC, such as the beneficial outcomes described by Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai¹⁰ in using NTAP for keloid scars. Treatment with NTAP may replace triamcinolone injections, which are commonly associated with skin atrophy and ulceration. In addition, NTAP application to the skin has been reported to be relatively painless.⁵ Thus, NTAP maintains a distinct advantage over other commonly used nonpharmacologic treatment options, including curettage and cryosurgery. Curettage has widely been noted to be traumatic for the patient, may be more likely to leave a mark, and is prone to user error.²⁰ Cryosurgery is a common form of treatment for MC because it is cost-effective and has good cosmetic results; however, it is more painful than cantharidin or anesthetized curettage.²¹ Treatment with NTAP is an emerging therapeutic tool with an expanding role in the treatment of dermatologic patients because it provides advantages over many standard therapies due to its minimal side-effect profile involving pain and nonpharmacologic nature.

Limitations of this report include exclusion of non–English-language articles and lack of control or comparison groups to standard therapies across studies. Additionally, reports of NTAP success occurred in many conditions that are self-limited and may have resolved on their own. Regardless, we aimed to summarize how NTAP currently is being used in pediatric populations and highlight its potential uses moving forward. Given its promising safety profile and painless nature, future clinical trials should prioritize the investigation of NTAP use in common pediatric dermatologic conditions to determine if they are equal or superior to current standards of care.

Nonthermal atmospheric plasma (NTAP)(or cold atmospheric plasma [CAP]) is a rapidly developing treatment modality for a wide range of dermatologic conditions. Plasma (or ionized gas) refers to a state of matter composed of electrons, protons, and neutral atoms that generate reactive oxygen and nitrogen species.¹ Plasma previously was created using thermal energy, but recent advances have allowed the creation of plasma using atmospheric pressure and room temperature; thus, NTAP can be used without causing damage to living tissue through heat.¹ Plasma technology varies greatly, but it generally can be classified as either direct or indirect therapy; direct therapy uses the human body as an electrode, whereas indirect therapy creates plasma through the interaction between 2 electrode devices.^1,2 When used on the skin, important dose-dependent relationships have been observed, with CAP application longer than 2 minutes being associated with increased keratinocyte and fibroblast apoptosis.² Thus, CAP can cause diverse changes to the skin depending on application time and methodology. At adequate yet low concentrations, plasma can promote fibroblast proliferation and upregulate genes involved in collagen and transforming growth factor synthesis.¹ Additionally, the reactive oxygen and nitrogen species created by NTAP have been shown to inactivate microorganisms through the destruction of biofilms, lead to diminished immune cell infiltration and cytokine release in autoimmune dermatologic conditions, and exert antitumor properties through cellular DNA damage.^1-3 In dermatology, these properties can be harvested to promote wound healing at low doses and the treatment of proliferative skin conditions at high doses.¹

Because of its novelty, the safety profile of NTAP is still under investigation, but preliminary studies are promising and show no damage to the skin barrier when excessive plasma exposure is avoided.⁴ However, dose- and time-dependent damage to cells has been shown. As a result, the exact dose of plasma considered safe is highly variable depending on the vessel, technique, and user, and future clinical research is needed to guide this methodology.⁴ Additionally, CAP has been shown to cause little pain at the skin surface and may lead to decreased levels of pain in healing wound sites.⁵ Given this promising safety profile and minimal discomfort to patients, NTAP technology remains promising for use in pediatric dermatology, but there are limited data to characterize its potential use in this population. In this systematic review, we aimed to elucidate reported applications of NTAP for skin conditions in children and discuss the trajectory of this technology in the future of pediatric dermatology.

Methodology

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating NTAP technology in pediatric populations using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. A search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science articles was conducted in April 2023 using the terms nonthermal atmospheric plasma or cold atmospheric plasma. All English-language articles that described the use of NTAP as a treatment in pediatric populations or articles that described NTAP use in the treatment of common conditions in this patient group were included based on a review of the article titles and abstracts by 2 independent reviewers, followed by full-text review of relevant articles (M.G., C.L.). Any discrepancies in eligible articles were settled by a third independent researcher (M.V.). One hundred twenty studies were identified, and 95 were screened for inclusion; 9 studies met inclusion criteria and were summarized in this review.

Results

A total of 9 studies were included in this review: 3 describing the success of NTAP in pediatric populations^6-8 and 6 describing the potential success of NTAP for dermatologic conditions commonly seen in children (Table).^9-14

Studies Describing Success of NTAP—Three clinical reports described the efficacy of NTAP in pediatric dermatology. A case series from 2020 showed full clearance of warts in 100% of patients (n=5) with a 0% recurrence rate when NTAP treatment was applied for 2 minutes to each lesion during each treatment session with the electrode held 1 mm from the lesional surface.⁶ Each patient was followed up at 3 to 4 weeks, and treatment was repeated if lesions persisted. Patients reported no pain during the procedure, and no adverse effects were noted over the course of treatment.⁶ Second, a case report described full clearance of diaper dermatitis with no recurrence after 6 months following 6 treatments with NTAP in a 14-month-old girl.⁷ After treatment with econazole nitrate cream, oral antibiotics, and prednisone failed, CAP treatment was initiated. Each treatment lasted 15 minutes with 3-day time intervals between each of the 6 treatments. There were no adverse events or recurrence of rash at 6-month follow-up.⁷ A final case report described full clearance of molluscum contagiosum (MC), with no recurrence after 2 months following 4 treatments with NTAP in a 12-year-old boy.⁸ The patient had untreated MC on the face, neck, shoulder, and thighs. Lesions of the face were treated with CAP, while the other sites were treated with cantharidin using a 0.7% collodion-based solution. Four CAP treatments were performed at 1-month intervals, with CAP applied 1 mm from the lesional surfaces in a circular pattern for 2 minutes. At follow-up 2 months after the final treatment, the patient had no adverse effects and showed no pigmentary changes or scarring.⁸

Studies Describing the Potential Success of NTAP—Beyond these studies, limited research has been done on NTAP in pediatric populations. The Table summarizes 6 additional studies completed with promising treatment results for dermatologic conditions commonly seen in children: striae distensae, keloids, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, inverse psoriasis, and acne vulgaris. Across all reports and studies, patients showed significant improvement in their dermatologic conditions following the use of NTAP technology with limited adverse effects reported (P<.05). Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai⁹ studied the use of CAP for the treatment of striae distensae. They recruited 23 patients and treated half the body with CAP biweekly for 5 sessions; the other half was left untreated. At follow-up 30 days after the final treatment, striae distensae had improved for both patient and observer assessment scores.⁹ Another study performed by Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai¹⁰ looked at the efficacy of CAP in treating keloids. They recruited 18 patients, and keloid scars were treated in halves—one half treated with CAP biweekly for 5 sessions and the other left untreated. At follow-up 30 days after the final treatment, keloids significantly improved in color, melanin, texture, and hemoglobin based on assessment by the Antera 3D imaging system (Miravex Limited)(P<.05).¹⁰

Kim et al¹¹ studied the efficacy of CAP for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in 22 patients. Each patient had mild to moderate atopic dermatitis that had not been treated with topical agents or antibiotics for at least 2 weeks prior to beginning the study. Additionally, only patients with symmetric lesions—meaning only patients with lesions on both sides of the anatomical extremities—were included. Each patient then received CAP on 1 symmetric lesion and placebo on the other. Cold atmospheric plasma treatment was done 5 mm away from the lesion, and each treatment lasted for 5 minutes. Treatments were done at weeks 0, 1, and 2, with follow-up 4 weeks after the final treatment. The clinical severity of disease was assessed at weeks 0, 1, 2, and 4. Results showed that at week 4, the mean (SD) modified Atopic Dermatitis Antecubital Severity score decreased from 33.73 (21.21) at week 0 to 13.12 (15.92). Additionally, the pruritic visual analog scale showed significant improvement with treatment vs baseline (P≤.0001).¹¹

Two studies examined how NTAP can be used in the treatment of psoriasis. First, Gareri et al¹² used CAP to treat a psoriatic plaque in a 20-year-old woman. These plaques on the left hand previously had been unresponsive to topical psoriasis treatments. The patient received 2 treatments with CAP on days 0 and 3; at 14 days, the plaque completely resolved with an itch score of 0.¹² Next, Zheng et al¹³ treated 2 patients with NTAP for inverse psoriasis. The first patient was a 26-year-old woman with plaques in the axilla and buttocks as well as inframammary lesions that failed to respond to treatment with topicals and vitamin D analogues. She received CAP treatments 2 to 3 times weekly for 5 total treatments with application to each region occurring 1 mm from the skin surface. The lesions completely resolved with no recurrence at 6 weeks. The second patient was a 38-year-old woman with inverse psoriasis in the axilla and groin; she received treatment every 3 days for 8 total treatments, which led to complete remission, with no recurrence noted at 1 month.¹³

Arisi et al¹⁴ used NTAP to treat acne vulgaris in 2 patients. The first patient was a 24-year-old man with moderate acne on the face that did not improve with topicals or oral antibiotics. The patient received 5 CAP treatments with no adverse events noted. The patient discontinued treatment on his own, but the number of lesions decreased after the fifth treatment. The second patient was a 21-year-old woman with moderate facial acne that failed to respond to treatment with topicals and oral tetracycline. The patient received 8 CAP treatments and experienced a reduction in the number of lesions during treatment. There were no adverse events, and improvement was maintained at 3-month follow-up.¹⁴

Comment

Although the use of NTAP in pediatric dermatology is scarcely described in the literature, the technology will certainly have applications in the future treatment of a wide variety of pediatric disorders. In addition to the clinical success shown in several studies,^6-14 this technology has been shown to cause minimal damage to skin when application time is minimized. One study conducted on ex vivo skin showed that NTAP technology can safely be used for up to 2 minutes without major DNA damage.¹⁵ Through its diverse mechanisms of action, NTAP can induce modification of proteins and cell membranes in a noninvasive manner.² In conditions with impaired barrier function, such as atopic and diaper dermatitis, studies in mouse models have shown improvement in lesions via upregulation of mesencephalic astrocyte-derived neurotrophic factor that contributes to decreased inflammation and cell apoptosis.¹⁶ Additionally, the generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species has been shown to decrease Staphylococcus aureus colonization to improve atopic dermatitis lesions in patients.¹¹

Many other proposed benefits of NTAP in dermatologic disease also have been proposed. Nonthermal atmospheric plasma has been shown to increase messenger RNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6) and upregulate type III collagen production in early stages of wound healing.¹⁷ Furthermore, NTAP has been shown to stimulate nuclear factor erythroid 2–related pathways involved in antioxidant production in keratinocytes, further promoting wound healing.¹⁸ Additionally, CAP has been shown to increase expression of caspases and induce mitochondrial dysfunction that promotes cell death in different cancer cell lines.¹⁹ It is clear that the exact breadth of NTAP’s biochemical effects are unknown, but the current literature shows promise for its use in cutaneous healing and cancer treatment.

Beyond its diverse applications, treatment with NTAP yields a unique advantage to pharmacologic therapies in that there is no risk for medication interactions or risk for pharmacologic adverse effects. Cantharidin is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration but commonly is used to treat MC. It is a blister beetle extract that causes a blister to form when applied to the skin. When orally ingested, the drug is toxic to the gastrointestinal tract and kidneys because of its phosphodiesterase inhibition, a feared complication in pediatric patients who may inadvertently ingest it during treatment.²⁰ This utility extends beyond MC, such as the beneficial outcomes described by Suwanchinda and Nararatwanchai¹⁰ in using NTAP for keloid scars. Treatment with NTAP may replace triamcinolone injections, which are commonly associated with skin atrophy and ulceration. In addition, NTAP application to the skin has been reported to be relatively painless.⁵ Thus, NTAP maintains a distinct advantage over other commonly used nonpharmacologic treatment options, including curettage and cryosurgery. Curettage has widely been noted to be traumatic for the patient, may be more likely to leave a mark, and is prone to user error.²⁰ Cryosurgery is a common form of treatment for MC because it is cost-effective and has good cosmetic results; however, it is more painful than cantharidin or anesthetized curettage.²¹ Treatment with NTAP is an emerging therapeutic tool with an expanding role in the treatment of dermatologic patients because it provides advantages over many standard therapies due to its minimal side-effect profile involving pain and nonpharmacologic nature.

Limitations of this report include exclusion of non–English-language articles and lack of control or comparison groups to standard therapies across studies. Additionally, reports of NTAP success occurred in many conditions that are self-limited and may have resolved on their own. Regardless, we aimed to summarize how NTAP currently is being used in pediatric populations and highlight its potential uses moving forward. Given its promising safety profile and painless nature, future clinical trials should prioritize the investigation of NTAP use in common pediatric dermatologic conditions to determine if they are equal or superior to current standards of care.

The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, ¹ but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. ^2,3

The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,¹ which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.

What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?

The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,² Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,⁴ and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.³ Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.

Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),² such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.⁴ The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 2023⁴; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.²

What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?

During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.³ As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,⁶ whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.^3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.⁶ Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.^3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.⁵

What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?

As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.⁶ Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.

Final Thoughts

The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,^1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.

The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, ¹ but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. ^2,3

The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,¹ which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.

What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?

The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,² Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,⁴ and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.³ Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.

Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),² such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.⁴ The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 2023⁴; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.²

What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?

During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.³ As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,⁶ whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.^3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.⁶ Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.^3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.⁵

What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?

As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.⁶ Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.

Final Thoughts

The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,^1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.

The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, ¹ but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. ^2,3

The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,¹ which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.

What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?

The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,² Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,⁴ and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.³ Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.

Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),² such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.⁴ The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 2023⁴; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.²

What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?

During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.³ As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,⁶ whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.^3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.⁶ Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.^3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.⁵

What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?

As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.⁶ Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.

Final Thoughts

The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,^1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.

Your patients may see ads claiming that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) offers postmenopausal women health benefits beyond restored sex drive: that TRT can improve their mood, energy, and thinking and give them stronger bones and bigger muscles.

How accurate are these claims? According to six experts who talked with this news organization, not very.

“Right now in this country and around the world, testosterone’s only use in postmenopausal women is for libido,” said Adrian Sandra Dobs, MD, MHS, professor of medicine and director of the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Network at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“Treating postmenopausal women with testosterone is a rarity. Some physicians and some wellness centers make their money out of prescribing estrogen and testosterone to women in patches, gels, creams, capsules, pellets, and other forms. But when you look at the scientific data, outside of libido, it’s difficult to recommend testosterone therapy,” she added by phone.

“One has to be very careful about using testosterone in women,” Dr. Dobs cautioned. “There’s a lot of hype out there.”

Low testosterone in women has not been well studied, and no testosterone treatments for this condition have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Providers need to adjust male treatment data to their female patients, who require significantly lower doses than males. Contraindications and long-term side effects are poorly understood, said Mary Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health and director of integrated women’s health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“Despite this preponderance of scientific evidence and recommendations, the myths about testosterone die hard, including that it improves women’s muscle function, endurance, and well-being,” Dr. Rosser said.

“Websites that use compounded products or pellets are not FDA-regulated; therefore, they have no responsibility to prove their claims. They can entice women into using this stuff with all kinds of promises about ‘hormone balancing’ and other meaningless terms. The Endocrine Society statement reviewed the clinical studies on testosterone for various indications surrounding physical endurance, well-being, and mental health – and the studies do not support its use,” Dr. Rosser added.

According to the Australasian Menopause Society, women’s blood testosterone levels tend to peak in their 20s, slowly decline to around 25% of peak levels at menopause, then rise again in later years.

Susan Davis, PhD, and her colleagues at Monash University, Melbourne, found in a study that TRT in postmenopausal women may improve sexual well-being and that side effects include acne and increased hair growth. But they found no benefits for cognition, bone mineral density, body composition, muscle strength, or psychological well-being, and they note that more data are needed on long-term safety.
 

Postmenopausal testosterone recommended for libido only

“Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is really the only indication for postmenopausal testosterone use,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted by email. “In clinical studies using androgen gel containing testosterone, testosterone treatment has resulted in a mean of one more satisfying sexual encounter per month. Consensus statements issued by the Endocrine Society, The International Menopause Society, and the North American Menopause Society have come to similar conclusions: The only indication for androgen therapy for women is HSDD,” added Santoro, an author of the Endocrine Society statement.

“Sexual health and the sense of well-being are very much related,” Sandra Ann Carson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said by phone. “So we give testosterone to increase sexual desire. Testosterone is not a treatment for decreased sense of well-being alone. Women who lose their sense of well-being due to depression or other factors need to have a mental health evaluation, not testosterone.”

“Because no female product is presently approved by a national regulatory body, male formulations can be judiciously used in female doses and blood testosterone concentrations must be monitored regularly,” Dr. Rosser said. “The recommendation is for considering use of compounded testosterone for hypoactive sexual desire only; it is against use for overall health and wellness.”

“The real mischief occurs when women are exposed to doses that are supraphysiologic,” Dr. Rosser cautioned. “At high doses that approach and sometimes exceed men’s levels of testosterone, women can have deepening of the voice, adverse changes in cholesterol, and even breast atrophy. This can occur with bioidentical compounded testosterone and with testosterone pellets. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine recommend unequivocally that such preparations not be used.”

Not all postmenopausal women should take TRT, said Meredith McClure, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, because it has only been shown in trials to help with HSDD.

She advised clinicians to avoid prescribing testosterone to patients who “can’t take estrogen, including if [they] have hormone-sensitive cancer, blood clot risk, liver disease, heart attack, stroke, or undiagnosed genital bleeding.”
 

TRT for non-libido issues may sometimes be appropriate

“Perhaps women with hip fracture or cancer cachexia could benefit from testosterone to build muscle mass,” said Dr. Dobbs, who is involved in an ongoing study of testosterone treatment in women with hip fracture. “But as yet, we have no proof that testosterone helps.”

In rare cases, Stanley G. Korenman, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and associate dean for ethics at UCLA Health, treats postmenopausal patients with TRT for reasons other than low libido. “I have a very specialized practice in reproductive endocrinology and internal medicine and am one of very few people in the country who do this kind of management,” he said in an interview. “If my postmenopausal patients have low testosterone and lack energy, I’m willing to give them low doses. If they feel more energetic, we continue, but if they don’t, we stop. I don’t think there’s any risk whatsoever at the low level I prescribe.

“I prescribe standard gel that comes in a squirt bottle, and I suggest they take half a squirt every other day – about one-eighth of a male dose – on the sole of the foot, where hair does not grow.

“I would not prescribe testosterone for bone health. We have bisphosphonates and other much better treatments for that. And I would not prescribe it to someone who is seriously emotionally disturbed or seriously depressed. This is not a treatment for depression.”

“Postmenopausal testosterone is not ‘the latest greatest thing,’ but being very low risk, it’s worth trying once in a while, in the appropriate patient, at the right dose,” Dr. Korenman advised. He cautioned people to “avoid the longevity salespeople who sell all sorts of things in all sorts of doses to try to keep us alive forever.”

All contributors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Your patients may see ads claiming that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) offers postmenopausal women health benefits beyond restored sex drive: that TRT can improve their mood, energy, and thinking and give them stronger bones and bigger muscles.

How accurate are these claims? According to six experts who talked with this news organization, not very.

“Right now in this country and around the world, testosterone’s only use in postmenopausal women is for libido,” said Adrian Sandra Dobs, MD, MHS, professor of medicine and director of the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Network at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“Treating postmenopausal women with testosterone is a rarity. Some physicians and some wellness centers make their money out of prescribing estrogen and testosterone to women in patches, gels, creams, capsules, pellets, and other forms. But when you look at the scientific data, outside of libido, it’s difficult to recommend testosterone therapy,” she added by phone.

“One has to be very careful about using testosterone in women,” Dr. Dobs cautioned. “There’s a lot of hype out there.”

Low testosterone in women has not been well studied, and no testosterone treatments for this condition have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Providers need to adjust male treatment data to their female patients, who require significantly lower doses than males. Contraindications and long-term side effects are poorly understood, said Mary Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health and director of integrated women’s health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“Despite this preponderance of scientific evidence and recommendations, the myths about testosterone die hard, including that it improves women’s muscle function, endurance, and well-being,” Dr. Rosser said.

“Websites that use compounded products or pellets are not FDA-regulated; therefore, they have no responsibility to prove their claims. They can entice women into using this stuff with all kinds of promises about ‘hormone balancing’ and other meaningless terms. The Endocrine Society statement reviewed the clinical studies on testosterone for various indications surrounding physical endurance, well-being, and mental health – and the studies do not support its use,” Dr. Rosser added.

According to the Australasian Menopause Society, women’s blood testosterone levels tend to peak in their 20s, slowly decline to around 25% of peak levels at menopause, then rise again in later years.

Susan Davis, PhD, and her colleagues at Monash University, Melbourne, found in a study that TRT in postmenopausal women may improve sexual well-being and that side effects include acne and increased hair growth. But they found no benefits for cognition, bone mineral density, body composition, muscle strength, or psychological well-being, and they note that more data are needed on long-term safety.
 

Postmenopausal testosterone recommended for libido only

“Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is really the only indication for postmenopausal testosterone use,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted by email. “In clinical studies using androgen gel containing testosterone, testosterone treatment has resulted in a mean of one more satisfying sexual encounter per month. Consensus statements issued by the Endocrine Society, The International Menopause Society, and the North American Menopause Society have come to similar conclusions: The only indication for androgen therapy for women is HSDD,” added Santoro, an author of the Endocrine Society statement.

“Sexual health and the sense of well-being are very much related,” Sandra Ann Carson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said by phone. “So we give testosterone to increase sexual desire. Testosterone is not a treatment for decreased sense of well-being alone. Women who lose their sense of well-being due to depression or other factors need to have a mental health evaluation, not testosterone.”

“Because no female product is presently approved by a national regulatory body, male formulations can be judiciously used in female doses and blood testosterone concentrations must be monitored regularly,” Dr. Rosser said. “The recommendation is for considering use of compounded testosterone for hypoactive sexual desire only; it is against use for overall health and wellness.”

“The real mischief occurs when women are exposed to doses that are supraphysiologic,” Dr. Rosser cautioned. “At high doses that approach and sometimes exceed men’s levels of testosterone, women can have deepening of the voice, adverse changes in cholesterol, and even breast atrophy. This can occur with bioidentical compounded testosterone and with testosterone pellets. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine recommend unequivocally that such preparations not be used.”

Not all postmenopausal women should take TRT, said Meredith McClure, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, because it has only been shown in trials to help with HSDD.

She advised clinicians to avoid prescribing testosterone to patients who “can’t take estrogen, including if [they] have hormone-sensitive cancer, blood clot risk, liver disease, heart attack, stroke, or undiagnosed genital bleeding.”
 

TRT for non-libido issues may sometimes be appropriate

“Perhaps women with hip fracture or cancer cachexia could benefit from testosterone to build muscle mass,” said Dr. Dobbs, who is involved in an ongoing study of testosterone treatment in women with hip fracture. “But as yet, we have no proof that testosterone helps.”

In rare cases, Stanley G. Korenman, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and associate dean for ethics at UCLA Health, treats postmenopausal patients with TRT for reasons other than low libido. “I have a very specialized practice in reproductive endocrinology and internal medicine and am one of very few people in the country who do this kind of management,” he said in an interview. “If my postmenopausal patients have low testosterone and lack energy, I’m willing to give them low doses. If they feel more energetic, we continue, but if they don’t, we stop. I don’t think there’s any risk whatsoever at the low level I prescribe.

“I prescribe standard gel that comes in a squirt bottle, and I suggest they take half a squirt every other day – about one-eighth of a male dose – on the sole of the foot, where hair does not grow.

“I would not prescribe testosterone for bone health. We have bisphosphonates and other much better treatments for that. And I would not prescribe it to someone who is seriously emotionally disturbed or seriously depressed. This is not a treatment for depression.”

“Postmenopausal testosterone is not ‘the latest greatest thing,’ but being very low risk, it’s worth trying once in a while, in the appropriate patient, at the right dose,” Dr. Korenman advised. He cautioned people to “avoid the longevity salespeople who sell all sorts of things in all sorts of doses to try to keep us alive forever.”

All contributors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Your patients may see ads claiming that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) offers postmenopausal women health benefits beyond restored sex drive: that TRT can improve their mood, energy, and thinking and give them stronger bones and bigger muscles.

How accurate are these claims? According to six experts who talked with this news organization, not very.

“Right now in this country and around the world, testosterone’s only use in postmenopausal women is for libido,” said Adrian Sandra Dobs, MD, MHS, professor of medicine and director of the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Network at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“Treating postmenopausal women with testosterone is a rarity. Some physicians and some wellness centers make their money out of prescribing estrogen and testosterone to women in patches, gels, creams, capsules, pellets, and other forms. But when you look at the scientific data, outside of libido, it’s difficult to recommend testosterone therapy,” she added by phone.

“One has to be very careful about using testosterone in women,” Dr. Dobs cautioned. “There’s a lot of hype out there.”

Low testosterone in women has not been well studied, and no testosterone treatments for this condition have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Providers need to adjust male treatment data to their female patients, who require significantly lower doses than males. Contraindications and long-term side effects are poorly understood, said Mary Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health and director of integrated women’s health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“Despite this preponderance of scientific evidence and recommendations, the myths about testosterone die hard, including that it improves women’s muscle function, endurance, and well-being,” Dr. Rosser said.

“Websites that use compounded products or pellets are not FDA-regulated; therefore, they have no responsibility to prove their claims. They can entice women into using this stuff with all kinds of promises about ‘hormone balancing’ and other meaningless terms. The Endocrine Society statement reviewed the clinical studies on testosterone for various indications surrounding physical endurance, well-being, and mental health – and the studies do not support its use,” Dr. Rosser added.

According to the Australasian Menopause Society, women’s blood testosterone levels tend to peak in their 20s, slowly decline to around 25% of peak levels at menopause, then rise again in later years.

Susan Davis, PhD, and her colleagues at Monash University, Melbourne, found in a study that TRT in postmenopausal women may improve sexual well-being and that side effects include acne and increased hair growth. But they found no benefits for cognition, bone mineral density, body composition, muscle strength, or psychological well-being, and they note that more data are needed on long-term safety.
 

Postmenopausal testosterone recommended for libido only

“Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is really the only indication for postmenopausal testosterone use,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted by email. “In clinical studies using androgen gel containing testosterone, testosterone treatment has resulted in a mean of one more satisfying sexual encounter per month. Consensus statements issued by the Endocrine Society, The International Menopause Society, and the North American Menopause Society have come to similar conclusions: The only indication for androgen therapy for women is HSDD,” added Santoro, an author of the Endocrine Society statement.

“Sexual health and the sense of well-being are very much related,” Sandra Ann Carson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said by phone. “So we give testosterone to increase sexual desire. Testosterone is not a treatment for decreased sense of well-being alone. Women who lose their sense of well-being due to depression or other factors need to have a mental health evaluation, not testosterone.”

“Because no female product is presently approved by a national regulatory body, male formulations can be judiciously used in female doses and blood testosterone concentrations must be monitored regularly,” Dr. Rosser said. “The recommendation is for considering use of compounded testosterone for hypoactive sexual desire only; it is against use for overall health and wellness.”

“The real mischief occurs when women are exposed to doses that are supraphysiologic,” Dr. Rosser cautioned. “At high doses that approach and sometimes exceed men’s levels of testosterone, women can have deepening of the voice, adverse changes in cholesterol, and even breast atrophy. This can occur with bioidentical compounded testosterone and with testosterone pellets. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine recommend unequivocally that such preparations not be used.”

Not all postmenopausal women should take TRT, said Meredith McClure, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, because it has only been shown in trials to help with HSDD.

She advised clinicians to avoid prescribing testosterone to patients who “can’t take estrogen, including if [they] have hormone-sensitive cancer, blood clot risk, liver disease, heart attack, stroke, or undiagnosed genital bleeding.”
 

TRT for non-libido issues may sometimes be appropriate

“Perhaps women with hip fracture or cancer cachexia could benefit from testosterone to build muscle mass,” said Dr. Dobbs, who is involved in an ongoing study of testosterone treatment in women with hip fracture. “But as yet, we have no proof that testosterone helps.”

In rare cases, Stanley G. Korenman, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and associate dean for ethics at UCLA Health, treats postmenopausal patients with TRT for reasons other than low libido. “I have a very specialized practice in reproductive endocrinology and internal medicine and am one of very few people in the country who do this kind of management,” he said in an interview. “If my postmenopausal patients have low testosterone and lack energy, I’m willing to give them low doses. If they feel more energetic, we continue, but if they don’t, we stop. I don’t think there’s any risk whatsoever at the low level I prescribe.

“I prescribe standard gel that comes in a squirt bottle, and I suggest they take half a squirt every other day – about one-eighth of a male dose – on the sole of the foot, where hair does not grow.

“I would not prescribe testosterone for bone health. We have bisphosphonates and other much better treatments for that. And I would not prescribe it to someone who is seriously emotionally disturbed or seriously depressed. This is not a treatment for depression.”

“Postmenopausal testosterone is not ‘the latest greatest thing,’ but being very low risk, it’s worth trying once in a while, in the appropriate patient, at the right dose,” Dr. Korenman advised. He cautioned people to “avoid the longevity salespeople who sell all sorts of things in all sorts of doses to try to keep us alive forever.”

All contributors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest results from long-term follow-up of the two trials evaluating transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgery in patients with low surgical risk have shown different results.

The PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials were heralded as a landmark advance in medicine when the 1-year results from the two studies were presented back in 2019. Both trials suggested benefits of the less-invasive TAVR approach over surgery.

But because these low-surgical-risk patients are younger and will likely have a longer lifespan than will higher risk patients for whom the TAVR technique was first established, patient outcomes and information on how the TAVR devices hold up over the long-term are critical to inform clinical decision-making.

Latest results from the two trials show that the initial benefits of TAVR over surgery seen in PARTNER-3 seem to have attenuated over the longer-term, with main outcomes looking very similar in both groups after 5 years.

However, in the Evolut trial, the early benefit in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke seen in the TAVR group is continuing to increase, with current results showing a 26% relative reduction in this endpoint with TAVR vs. surgery at 4 years.

The 5-year results of the PARTNER-3 trial and the 4-year results of the Evolut study were presented Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Both sets of results were simultaneously published online: PARTNER-3 in The New England Journal of Medicine and Evolut in JACC.

Marty Leon, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who presented the PARTNER-3 results, said in an interview that both trials are good news for TAVR:

“Both trials have clearly reaffirmed clinical and echocardiographic benefits of TAVR as a meaningful alternative therapy to surgery in low-risk severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients.” Michael Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart & Vascular Center, who presented the Evolut results, agreed that both trials were positive for TAVR “as TAVR just has to be as good as surgery to be a winner because clearly it is a lot less invasive.”

But Dr. Dr. Reardon added that, “In making that decision for younger lower-risk patients, then the Evolut valve is the only TAVR valve that has shown superior hemodynamics and durability at all time points with excellent outcomes and widening benefits compared with surgery over the first 4 years.”
 

PARTNER-3

The PARTNER-3 trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve or surgery.

The results at 5 years show no difference in the two primary composite outcomes between TAVR and surgery patients.

The incidence of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group, occurring in 22.8% of patients in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group, which is a nonsignificant difference (P = .07).

The incidence of the individual components of the composite end point were also similar in the two groups. Death occurred in 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke in 5.8% of the TAVR group and 6.4% of the surgery group; and rehospitalization in 13.7% and 17.4%, respectively.

Aortic-valve durability also looked similar in the two groups. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean valve gradient, was 12.8 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

Among the secondary end points, atrial fibrillation and bleeding appeared to be less frequent in the TAVR group than in the surgery group, whereas paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation appeared to be less frequent in the surgery group.

Functional and health-status outcomes assessed according to New York Heart Association class, quality of life scores, and the percentage of patients who were alive and well at 5 years appeared to be similar in the two groups.

“These data are reassuring,” Dr. Leon said. “Cardiovascular mortality occurred at a rate of about 1% per year with both therapies, strokes at the rate of 1% per year with both therapies, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons at about 3% per year with both therapies. For patients in their 70s, these are very good numbers.”

Along with showing similar outcomes for TAVR and surgery at 5 years, he added, “the need for re-intervention was particularly low (2%-3%) and equivalent for both approaches. And structural valve deterioration was also very low and equivalent in both groups.”
 

Evolut low-risk trial

The Evolut trial enrolled 1,414 patients with low surgical risk who were randomly assigned to TAVR, a self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut R PRO, or surgery.

By 4 years, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke had occurred in 10.7% of the TAVR group and 14.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .05), representing a 26% relative reduction with TAVR.

The absolute difference between treatment arms for the primary endpoint continued to increase over time: 1.8% at 1 year, 2.0% at 2 years, 2.9% at 3 years, and 3.4% at 4 years.

Rates of the primary endpoint components were all-cause mortality 9.0% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .07); and disabling stroke was 2.9% with TAVR) vs. 3.8% for surgery (P = .32). Aortic valve rehospitalization was 10.3% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .27).

The composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or aortic valve rehospitalization was significantly lower with TAVR, compared with surgery (18.0% vs. 22.4%; HR, 0.78; P = .04).

New permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVR group (24.6% vs. 9.9%).

Indicators of valve performance including aortic valve reintervention (1.3% TAVR vs. 1.7% surgery); clinical or subclinical valve thrombosis (0.7% TAVR vs. 0.6% surgery); and valve endocarditis (0.9% TAVR vs. 2.2% surgery) were similarly low between groups, the authors report.

TAVR patients had sustained improvement in hemodynamics as measured by echocardiography, with significantly lower aortic valve mean gradients (9.8 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery) and greater effective orifice area (2.1 cm² TAVR vs. 2.0 cm² surgery).

At 4 years, 84.7% of TAVR patients and 98.4% of surgery patients had no or trace paravalvular regurgitation, and there was no difference between groups in moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (0.4% TAVR vs. 0.0% surgery).

“The Evolut valve has shown a superior performance to surgery,” Dr. Reardon concluded. “It has less structural valve deterioration, less severe patient prosthetic mismatch, and superior hemodynamics, compared to surgery. All these factors are translating into a widening difference in clinical event curves year on year with the Evolut valve vs. surgery.”
 

Why the difference between trials?

The big question is why the early benefit seen with TAVR vs. surgery in both trials was attenuated by 5 years in PARTNER-3 but seemed to become greater each year in the Evolut trial. There were no definite explanations for these observations, but several possibilities were suggested.

Dr. Leon noted that with trials of intervention vs. surgery, it is common for the intervention group to do better in the beginning and for surgery to catch up a bit in later years. “So, it is not that much of a surprise to see outcomes plateauing in PARTNER-3.”

But he also suggested some other factors that may have played a role, one of which was the COVID pandemic.

“During the 2-year COVID period more than 75% of the deaths and strokes in the trial occurred in the TAVR patients,” he said. “Surgery patients were getting more anticoagulation because they had more paroxysmal [atrial fibrillation]. We know that COVID is a stimulus of thrombogenic events so in an odd way we think there may have been some cardioprotective effects from anticoagulation therapy in the surgery group.”

He also pointed out that though hospitalization and strokes were slightly lower with TAVR vs. surgery in the PARTNER-3 trial, mortality was slightly greater in the TAVR group.

“There was a 2:1 ratio in the TAVR and surgery groups in noncardiovascular deaths which influenced the all-cause mortality numbers,” he noted.
 

Mortality rates in the surgery groups

Dr. Leon also pointed out differences in the mortality rates in the surgery groups in the two trials, which he suggested may contribute to the explanation for the different longer-term results.

“The baseline characteristics for patients in these two trials were almost identical, and results at 1 year were very similar, but for whatever reason, over the course of a few years, the outcomes in the Evolut trial were different to those in PARTNER-3, and in particular the difference was in the surgical arms, with a higher event rate in the surgical arm in Evolut than in the surgery arm in PARTNER-3,” he said. “When the control does not perform well it is a lot easier to show that the experimental arm is better.”

“When you look at the TAVR arms in both studies at each time point they are either similar or PARTNER-3 is actually lower,” he added. “That is why it is so difficult to compare these two trials.”

But Dr. Reardon dismissed this argument.

“What determines long-term survival after a procedure is the intrinsic risk level of the patients,” he said. “Overall mortality rates differ between the two trials because the PARTNER-3 trial enrolled a lower end of a low-risk population while Evolut enrolled an upper end of a low-risk population. You cannot look at absolute numbers between trials. That is intellectually and scientifically invalid.”

“It is the relative difference between surgery and TAVR that we are interested in, and we see in Evolut that the relative difference between the two procedures in terms of benefit with TAVR is widening every year,” he added. “That is because the superior valve performance and hemodynamics of the Evolut valve compared to surgery has translated into excellent clinical outcomes.

“In the PARTNER-3 trial – their curves are coming together. I think that is worrisome, but I don’t want to draw conclusions about their trial,” Dr. Reardon said. “All I know is that in our trial, we have excellent outcomes that are getting better year after year.”
 

Competition between valves

The different results of the two trials is inevitably producing some competition between the two products.

Dr. Reardon said: “In terms of which valve to use, clinicians will want to choose a valve that has the best durability and shows the best survival vs. surgery and that is clearly the Evolut valve. I think the writing is on the wall. Some clinicians are going to wait for longer term data, but the question is do we have enough long-term data now.”

But Dr. Leon countered: “There’s never been a head-to-head device to suggest that the self- expanding device performs better than the balloon expanding device. We always think about them as being similar in terms of performance. There is an aggressive effort to suggest that by virtue of the current trial results there was a superior outcome with the Medtronic device, but it’s hard to explain why that would be the case, and we should not compare between the two trials.”

Both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon stressed that longer-term follow-up is critical because some surgical valves are known to fail between 5-10 years, and it is not known how the TAVR valves will perform over that period.

Both the PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials are planning to keep following patients out to 10 years.

For the time being though, both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon agreed that these current results will probably accelerate the already rapid transition from surgery to TAVR in low-risk patients.

“TAVR will be the default therapy,” Dr. Leon commented. “It will be the first choice for patients. Whether TAVR is superior to surgery in terms of outcomes or just the same, there are sufficient benefits from a logistic and patient perspective that most people would prefer to have the less invasive therapy. TAVR is a one-day procedure, there is no need for general anesthetic, a lot of the secondary outcomes that are so problematic with surgery don’t exist, and the ability to be in a symptom-free state is dramatically accelerated.”

“This was the first serious foray into the low-risk population with TAVR,” he added. “We had an age cut of 65 years, but the vast majority of patients in both trials were over 70. We could now start looking at younger patient populations.”

But Dr. Reardon said that these younger patients are already being given TAVR, and future trials randomizing between TAVR and surgery may not be possible.

“Even though US guidelines still recommend surgery for patients under 65 years, patients want TAVR, and they get TAVR,” he said. “Recent data shows that in 2021, use of TAVR rose to 47.5% in patients under 65 needing isolated aortic valve replacement. That doesn’t meet the guidelines but there’s clearly a big shift going on. These results will just keep that momentum going.”

The PARTNER-3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. The Evolut study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Leon reports grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Reardon receives research grants from Medtronic.

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

The latest results from long-term follow-up of the two trials evaluating transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgery in patients with low surgical risk have shown different results.

The PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials were heralded as a landmark advance in medicine when the 1-year results from the two studies were presented back in 2019. Both trials suggested benefits of the less-invasive TAVR approach over surgery.

But because these low-surgical-risk patients are younger and will likely have a longer lifespan than will higher risk patients for whom the TAVR technique was first established, patient outcomes and information on how the TAVR devices hold up over the long-term are critical to inform clinical decision-making.

Latest results from the two trials show that the initial benefits of TAVR over surgery seen in PARTNER-3 seem to have attenuated over the longer-term, with main outcomes looking very similar in both groups after 5 years.

However, in the Evolut trial, the early benefit in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke seen in the TAVR group is continuing to increase, with current results showing a 26% relative reduction in this endpoint with TAVR vs. surgery at 4 years.

The 5-year results of the PARTNER-3 trial and the 4-year results of the Evolut study were presented Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Both sets of results were simultaneously published online: PARTNER-3 in The New England Journal of Medicine and Evolut in JACC.

Marty Leon, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who presented the PARTNER-3 results, said in an interview that both trials are good news for TAVR:

“Both trials have clearly reaffirmed clinical and echocardiographic benefits of TAVR as a meaningful alternative therapy to surgery in low-risk severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients.” Michael Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart & Vascular Center, who presented the Evolut results, agreed that both trials were positive for TAVR “as TAVR just has to be as good as surgery to be a winner because clearly it is a lot less invasive.”

But Dr. Dr. Reardon added that, “In making that decision for younger lower-risk patients, then the Evolut valve is the only TAVR valve that has shown superior hemodynamics and durability at all time points with excellent outcomes and widening benefits compared with surgery over the first 4 years.”
 

PARTNER-3

The PARTNER-3 trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve or surgery.

The results at 5 years show no difference in the two primary composite outcomes between TAVR and surgery patients.

The incidence of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group, occurring in 22.8% of patients in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group, which is a nonsignificant difference (P = .07).

The incidence of the individual components of the composite end point were also similar in the two groups. Death occurred in 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke in 5.8% of the TAVR group and 6.4% of the surgery group; and rehospitalization in 13.7% and 17.4%, respectively.

Aortic-valve durability also looked similar in the two groups. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean valve gradient, was 12.8 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

Among the secondary end points, atrial fibrillation and bleeding appeared to be less frequent in the TAVR group than in the surgery group, whereas paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation appeared to be less frequent in the surgery group.

Functional and health-status outcomes assessed according to New York Heart Association class, quality of life scores, and the percentage of patients who were alive and well at 5 years appeared to be similar in the two groups.

“These data are reassuring,” Dr. Leon said. “Cardiovascular mortality occurred at a rate of about 1% per year with both therapies, strokes at the rate of 1% per year with both therapies, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons at about 3% per year with both therapies. For patients in their 70s, these are very good numbers.”

Along with showing similar outcomes for TAVR and surgery at 5 years, he added, “the need for re-intervention was particularly low (2%-3%) and equivalent for both approaches. And structural valve deterioration was also very low and equivalent in both groups.”
 

Evolut low-risk trial

The Evolut trial enrolled 1,414 patients with low surgical risk who were randomly assigned to TAVR, a self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut R PRO, or surgery.

By 4 years, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke had occurred in 10.7% of the TAVR group and 14.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .05), representing a 26% relative reduction with TAVR.

The absolute difference between treatment arms for the primary endpoint continued to increase over time: 1.8% at 1 year, 2.0% at 2 years, 2.9% at 3 years, and 3.4% at 4 years.

Rates of the primary endpoint components were all-cause mortality 9.0% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .07); and disabling stroke was 2.9% with TAVR) vs. 3.8% for surgery (P = .32). Aortic valve rehospitalization was 10.3% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .27).

The composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or aortic valve rehospitalization was significantly lower with TAVR, compared with surgery (18.0% vs. 22.4%; HR, 0.78; P = .04).

New permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVR group (24.6% vs. 9.9%).

Indicators of valve performance including aortic valve reintervention (1.3% TAVR vs. 1.7% surgery); clinical or subclinical valve thrombosis (0.7% TAVR vs. 0.6% surgery); and valve endocarditis (0.9% TAVR vs. 2.2% surgery) were similarly low between groups, the authors report.

TAVR patients had sustained improvement in hemodynamics as measured by echocardiography, with significantly lower aortic valve mean gradients (9.8 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery) and greater effective orifice area (2.1 cm² TAVR vs. 2.0 cm² surgery).

At 4 years, 84.7% of TAVR patients and 98.4% of surgery patients had no or trace paravalvular regurgitation, and there was no difference between groups in moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (0.4% TAVR vs. 0.0% surgery).

“The Evolut valve has shown a superior performance to surgery,” Dr. Reardon concluded. “It has less structural valve deterioration, less severe patient prosthetic mismatch, and superior hemodynamics, compared to surgery. All these factors are translating into a widening difference in clinical event curves year on year with the Evolut valve vs. surgery.”
 

Why the difference between trials?

The big question is why the early benefit seen with TAVR vs. surgery in both trials was attenuated by 5 years in PARTNER-3 but seemed to become greater each year in the Evolut trial. There were no definite explanations for these observations, but several possibilities were suggested.

Dr. Leon noted that with trials of intervention vs. surgery, it is common for the intervention group to do better in the beginning and for surgery to catch up a bit in later years. “So, it is not that much of a surprise to see outcomes plateauing in PARTNER-3.”

But he also suggested some other factors that may have played a role, one of which was the COVID pandemic.

“During the 2-year COVID period more than 75% of the deaths and strokes in the trial occurred in the TAVR patients,” he said. “Surgery patients were getting more anticoagulation because they had more paroxysmal [atrial fibrillation]. We know that COVID is a stimulus of thrombogenic events so in an odd way we think there may have been some cardioprotective effects from anticoagulation therapy in the surgery group.”

He also pointed out that though hospitalization and strokes were slightly lower with TAVR vs. surgery in the PARTNER-3 trial, mortality was slightly greater in the TAVR group.

“There was a 2:1 ratio in the TAVR and surgery groups in noncardiovascular deaths which influenced the all-cause mortality numbers,” he noted.
 

Mortality rates in the surgery groups

Dr. Leon also pointed out differences in the mortality rates in the surgery groups in the two trials, which he suggested may contribute to the explanation for the different longer-term results.

“The baseline characteristics for patients in these two trials were almost identical, and results at 1 year were very similar, but for whatever reason, over the course of a few years, the outcomes in the Evolut trial were different to those in PARTNER-3, and in particular the difference was in the surgical arms, with a higher event rate in the surgical arm in Evolut than in the surgery arm in PARTNER-3,” he said. “When the control does not perform well it is a lot easier to show that the experimental arm is better.”

“When you look at the TAVR arms in both studies at each time point they are either similar or PARTNER-3 is actually lower,” he added. “That is why it is so difficult to compare these two trials.”

But Dr. Reardon dismissed this argument.

“What determines long-term survival after a procedure is the intrinsic risk level of the patients,” he said. “Overall mortality rates differ between the two trials because the PARTNER-3 trial enrolled a lower end of a low-risk population while Evolut enrolled an upper end of a low-risk population. You cannot look at absolute numbers between trials. That is intellectually and scientifically invalid.”

“It is the relative difference between surgery and TAVR that we are interested in, and we see in Evolut that the relative difference between the two procedures in terms of benefit with TAVR is widening every year,” he added. “That is because the superior valve performance and hemodynamics of the Evolut valve compared to surgery has translated into excellent clinical outcomes.

“In the PARTNER-3 trial – their curves are coming together. I think that is worrisome, but I don’t want to draw conclusions about their trial,” Dr. Reardon said. “All I know is that in our trial, we have excellent outcomes that are getting better year after year.”
 

Competition between valves

The different results of the two trials is inevitably producing some competition between the two products.

Dr. Reardon said: “In terms of which valve to use, clinicians will want to choose a valve that has the best durability and shows the best survival vs. surgery and that is clearly the Evolut valve. I think the writing is on the wall. Some clinicians are going to wait for longer term data, but the question is do we have enough long-term data now.”

But Dr. Leon countered: “There’s never been a head-to-head device to suggest that the self- expanding device performs better than the balloon expanding device. We always think about them as being similar in terms of performance. There is an aggressive effort to suggest that by virtue of the current trial results there was a superior outcome with the Medtronic device, but it’s hard to explain why that would be the case, and we should not compare between the two trials.”

Both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon stressed that longer-term follow-up is critical because some surgical valves are known to fail between 5-10 years, and it is not known how the TAVR valves will perform over that period.

Both the PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials are planning to keep following patients out to 10 years.

For the time being though, both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon agreed that these current results will probably accelerate the already rapid transition from surgery to TAVR in low-risk patients.

“TAVR will be the default therapy,” Dr. Leon commented. “It will be the first choice for patients. Whether TAVR is superior to surgery in terms of outcomes or just the same, there are sufficient benefits from a logistic and patient perspective that most people would prefer to have the less invasive therapy. TAVR is a one-day procedure, there is no need for general anesthetic, a lot of the secondary outcomes that are so problematic with surgery don’t exist, and the ability to be in a symptom-free state is dramatically accelerated.”

“This was the first serious foray into the low-risk population with TAVR,” he added. “We had an age cut of 65 years, but the vast majority of patients in both trials were over 70. We could now start looking at younger patient populations.”

But Dr. Reardon said that these younger patients are already being given TAVR, and future trials randomizing between TAVR and surgery may not be possible.

“Even though US guidelines still recommend surgery for patients under 65 years, patients want TAVR, and they get TAVR,” he said. “Recent data shows that in 2021, use of TAVR rose to 47.5% in patients under 65 needing isolated aortic valve replacement. That doesn’t meet the guidelines but there’s clearly a big shift going on. These results will just keep that momentum going.”

The PARTNER-3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. The Evolut study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Leon reports grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Reardon receives research grants from Medtronic.

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

The latest results from long-term follow-up of the two trials evaluating transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgery in patients with low surgical risk have shown different results.

The PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials were heralded as a landmark advance in medicine when the 1-year results from the two studies were presented back in 2019. Both trials suggested benefits of the less-invasive TAVR approach over surgery.

But because these low-surgical-risk patients are younger and will likely have a longer lifespan than will higher risk patients for whom the TAVR technique was first established, patient outcomes and information on how the TAVR devices hold up over the long-term are critical to inform clinical decision-making.

Latest results from the two trials show that the initial benefits of TAVR over surgery seen in PARTNER-3 seem to have attenuated over the longer-term, with main outcomes looking very similar in both groups after 5 years.

However, in the Evolut trial, the early benefit in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke seen in the TAVR group is continuing to increase, with current results showing a 26% relative reduction in this endpoint with TAVR vs. surgery at 4 years.

The 5-year results of the PARTNER-3 trial and the 4-year results of the Evolut study were presented Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Both sets of results were simultaneously published online: PARTNER-3 in The New England Journal of Medicine and Evolut in JACC.

Marty Leon, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who presented the PARTNER-3 results, said in an interview that both trials are good news for TAVR:

“Both trials have clearly reaffirmed clinical and echocardiographic benefits of TAVR as a meaningful alternative therapy to surgery in low-risk severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients.” Michael Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart & Vascular Center, who presented the Evolut results, agreed that both trials were positive for TAVR “as TAVR just has to be as good as surgery to be a winner because clearly it is a lot less invasive.”

But Dr. Dr. Reardon added that, “In making that decision for younger lower-risk patients, then the Evolut valve is the only TAVR valve that has shown superior hemodynamics and durability at all time points with excellent outcomes and widening benefits compared with surgery over the first 4 years.”
 

PARTNER-3

The PARTNER-3 trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve or surgery.

The results at 5 years show no difference in the two primary composite outcomes between TAVR and surgery patients.

The incidence of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group, occurring in 22.8% of patients in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group, which is a nonsignificant difference (P = .07).

The incidence of the individual components of the composite end point were also similar in the two groups. Death occurred in 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke in 5.8% of the TAVR group and 6.4% of the surgery group; and rehospitalization in 13.7% and 17.4%, respectively.

Aortic-valve durability also looked similar in the two groups. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean valve gradient, was 12.8 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

Among the secondary end points, atrial fibrillation and bleeding appeared to be less frequent in the TAVR group than in the surgery group, whereas paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation appeared to be less frequent in the surgery group.

Functional and health-status outcomes assessed according to New York Heart Association class, quality of life scores, and the percentage of patients who were alive and well at 5 years appeared to be similar in the two groups.

“These data are reassuring,” Dr. Leon said. “Cardiovascular mortality occurred at a rate of about 1% per year with both therapies, strokes at the rate of 1% per year with both therapies, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons at about 3% per year with both therapies. For patients in their 70s, these are very good numbers.”

Along with showing similar outcomes for TAVR and surgery at 5 years, he added, “the need for re-intervention was particularly low (2%-3%) and equivalent for both approaches. And structural valve deterioration was also very low and equivalent in both groups.”
 

Evolut low-risk trial

The Evolut trial enrolled 1,414 patients with low surgical risk who were randomly assigned to TAVR, a self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut R PRO, or surgery.

By 4 years, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke had occurred in 10.7% of the TAVR group and 14.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .05), representing a 26% relative reduction with TAVR.

The absolute difference between treatment arms for the primary endpoint continued to increase over time: 1.8% at 1 year, 2.0% at 2 years, 2.9% at 3 years, and 3.4% at 4 years.

Rates of the primary endpoint components were all-cause mortality 9.0% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .07); and disabling stroke was 2.9% with TAVR) vs. 3.8% for surgery (P = .32). Aortic valve rehospitalization was 10.3% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .27).

The composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or aortic valve rehospitalization was significantly lower with TAVR, compared with surgery (18.0% vs. 22.4%; HR, 0.78; P = .04).

New permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVR group (24.6% vs. 9.9%).

Indicators of valve performance including aortic valve reintervention (1.3% TAVR vs. 1.7% surgery); clinical or subclinical valve thrombosis (0.7% TAVR vs. 0.6% surgery); and valve endocarditis (0.9% TAVR vs. 2.2% surgery) were similarly low between groups, the authors report.

TAVR patients had sustained improvement in hemodynamics as measured by echocardiography, with significantly lower aortic valve mean gradients (9.8 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery) and greater effective orifice area (2.1 cm² TAVR vs. 2.0 cm² surgery).

At 4 years, 84.7% of TAVR patients and 98.4% of surgery patients had no or trace paravalvular regurgitation, and there was no difference between groups in moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (0.4% TAVR vs. 0.0% surgery).

“The Evolut valve has shown a superior performance to surgery,” Dr. Reardon concluded. “It has less structural valve deterioration, less severe patient prosthetic mismatch, and superior hemodynamics, compared to surgery. All these factors are translating into a widening difference in clinical event curves year on year with the Evolut valve vs. surgery.”
 

Why the difference between trials?

The big question is why the early benefit seen with TAVR vs. surgery in both trials was attenuated by 5 years in PARTNER-3 but seemed to become greater each year in the Evolut trial. There were no definite explanations for these observations, but several possibilities were suggested.

Dr. Leon noted that with trials of intervention vs. surgery, it is common for the intervention group to do better in the beginning and for surgery to catch up a bit in later years. “So, it is not that much of a surprise to see outcomes plateauing in PARTNER-3.”

But he also suggested some other factors that may have played a role, one of which was the COVID pandemic.

“During the 2-year COVID period more than 75% of the deaths and strokes in the trial occurred in the TAVR patients,” he said. “Surgery patients were getting more anticoagulation because they had more paroxysmal [atrial fibrillation]. We know that COVID is a stimulus of thrombogenic events so in an odd way we think there may have been some cardioprotective effects from anticoagulation therapy in the surgery group.”

He also pointed out that though hospitalization and strokes were slightly lower with TAVR vs. surgery in the PARTNER-3 trial, mortality was slightly greater in the TAVR group.

“There was a 2:1 ratio in the TAVR and surgery groups in noncardiovascular deaths which influenced the all-cause mortality numbers,” he noted.
 

Mortality rates in the surgery groups

Dr. Leon also pointed out differences in the mortality rates in the surgery groups in the two trials, which he suggested may contribute to the explanation for the different longer-term results.

“The baseline characteristics for patients in these two trials were almost identical, and results at 1 year were very similar, but for whatever reason, over the course of a few years, the outcomes in the Evolut trial were different to those in PARTNER-3, and in particular the difference was in the surgical arms, with a higher event rate in the surgical arm in Evolut than in the surgery arm in PARTNER-3,” he said. “When the control does not perform well it is a lot easier to show that the experimental arm is better.”

“When you look at the TAVR arms in both studies at each time point they are either similar or PARTNER-3 is actually lower,” he added. “That is why it is so difficult to compare these two trials.”

But Dr. Reardon dismissed this argument.

“What determines long-term survival after a procedure is the intrinsic risk level of the patients,” he said. “Overall mortality rates differ between the two trials because the PARTNER-3 trial enrolled a lower end of a low-risk population while Evolut enrolled an upper end of a low-risk population. You cannot look at absolute numbers between trials. That is intellectually and scientifically invalid.”

“It is the relative difference between surgery and TAVR that we are interested in, and we see in Evolut that the relative difference between the two procedures in terms of benefit with TAVR is widening every year,” he added. “That is because the superior valve performance and hemodynamics of the Evolut valve compared to surgery has translated into excellent clinical outcomes.

“In the PARTNER-3 trial – their curves are coming together. I think that is worrisome, but I don’t want to draw conclusions about their trial,” Dr. Reardon said. “All I know is that in our trial, we have excellent outcomes that are getting better year after year.”
 

Competition between valves

The different results of the two trials is inevitably producing some competition between the two products.

Dr. Reardon said: “In terms of which valve to use, clinicians will want to choose a valve that has the best durability and shows the best survival vs. surgery and that is clearly the Evolut valve. I think the writing is on the wall. Some clinicians are going to wait for longer term data, but the question is do we have enough long-term data now.”

But Dr. Leon countered: “There’s never been a head-to-head device to suggest that the self- expanding device performs better than the balloon expanding device. We always think about them as being similar in terms of performance. There is an aggressive effort to suggest that by virtue of the current trial results there was a superior outcome with the Medtronic device, but it’s hard to explain why that would be the case, and we should not compare between the two trials.”

Both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon stressed that longer-term follow-up is critical because some surgical valves are known to fail between 5-10 years, and it is not known how the TAVR valves will perform over that period.

Both the PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials are planning to keep following patients out to 10 years.

For the time being though, both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon agreed that these current results will probably accelerate the already rapid transition from surgery to TAVR in low-risk patients.

“TAVR will be the default therapy,” Dr. Leon commented. “It will be the first choice for patients. Whether TAVR is superior to surgery in terms of outcomes or just the same, there are sufficient benefits from a logistic and patient perspective that most people would prefer to have the less invasive therapy. TAVR is a one-day procedure, there is no need for general anesthetic, a lot of the secondary outcomes that are so problematic with surgery don’t exist, and the ability to be in a symptom-free state is dramatically accelerated.”

“This was the first serious foray into the low-risk population with TAVR,” he added. “We had an age cut of 65 years, but the vast majority of patients in both trials were over 70. We could now start looking at younger patient populations.”

But Dr. Reardon said that these younger patients are already being given TAVR, and future trials randomizing between TAVR and surgery may not be possible.

“Even though US guidelines still recommend surgery for patients under 65 years, patients want TAVR, and they get TAVR,” he said. “Recent data shows that in 2021, use of TAVR rose to 47.5% in patients under 65 needing isolated aortic valve replacement. That doesn’t meet the guidelines but there’s clearly a big shift going on. These results will just keep that momentum going.”

The PARTNER-3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. The Evolut study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Leon reports grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Reardon receives research grants from Medtronic.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with symptomatic, severe native aortic regurgitation at high surgical risk, the JenaValve Trilogy transcatheter heart valve system (JenaValve Technology) met its primary safety and efficacy endpoints, achieving a 1-year all-cause mortality rate of 7.8%.

New pacemaker implantation was 24%, similar to previously reported outcomes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, presented initial outcome results of the ALIGN-AR trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Dr. Thourani concluded that the Trilogy system provides the first dedicated transcatheter aortic valve replacement options “for symptomatic patients with moderate to severe or severe aortic regurgitation or at high risk for surgery and is well positioned to become the preferred therapy upon approval for this population.”

Currently, Trilogy is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the United States and is for investigational use only.

Untreated, severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with high mortality, especially for those with NYHA class 3 or 4 symptoms, Dr. Thourani explained. “While surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native severe AR, there are a multitude of high-risk patients who are not offered therapy.”

Off-label use of transcatheter valves for AR has been associated with “higher rates of complications, including paravalvular regurgitation and embolization,” he noted.

Dr. Thourani described the unique features of the JenaValve Trilogy valve. The system has a set of three “locators” in its own sheath that allows it to be rotated to align with the three cusps of the native aortic valve, falling into the sinuses and securely anchored to the native valve leaflets – then the valve is deployed. Inside a self-expanding nitinol frame is porcine pericardial tissue. A sealing ring provides sufficient anchoring while conforming to the annulus.

ALIGN-AR was a multicenter, single arm, non-blinded trial with follow-up out to 5 years involving patients with 3-plus or greater AR at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Exclusion criteria included an aortic root diameter greater than 5 cm, a previous prosthetic aortic valve, mitral regurgitation greater than moderate, or coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

After Trilogy valve implantation, patients were followed for 1, 6, and 12 months, as well as annually out to 5 years. Safety and efficacy endpoints were compared with prespecified performance goals. Of 180 patients enrolled, 177 were successfully implanted with the Trilogy device.

Patients had an average age of 75.5 years, 47.2% were women, 67.2% were in NYHA class III/IV, 82.8% were hypertensive, and one-third were frail. Severe AR was present in 62.4%, and 31.7% had moderate to severe AR.

The primary composite safety endpoint included all-cause mortality, any stroke, major vascular complication, major bleeding, a new pacemaker, acute kidney injury, valve dysfunction, or any intervention related to the device. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months.

The performance goal for primary efficacy was a weighted average of 25%, derived mainly from 1-year mortality figures for NYHA class I/II and class II/IV with conservative management.
 

Non-inferiority margin met

With a 25% prespecified non-inferiority margin for the primary efficacy endpoint, “We have observed a rate of 7.8%,” Dr. Thourani reported during a late-breaking clinical trials session. “The non-inferiority margin was met for the primary efficacy endpoint with a P value of less than .0001.”

“With a 40.5% prespecified non-inferiority margin of our primary safety endpoint, with a Trilogy [heart valve] we have observed a rate of 26.7%,” he said. “At 30 days there was a 2.2% mortality and a 2.2% stroke rate. There was a 26.7% primary safety endpoint, mainly driven by the 24% new pacemaker implantation rate. Without pacemaker implantation, the rate of safety events was less than 8%,” (P noninferiority < .0001).

Procedure technical success was 95%, device success 96.7%, and procedure success 92.8%. There was one ascending aortic dissection (0.6%). Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation also occurred in one patient. There were four cases of valve embolization.

Pacemaker implants occurred in 30% of patients in the first tercile enrolled and decreased to 14% for the third tercile enrolled. “Lower rates are most likely due to the change in the insertion technique, placing locators above the nadir of the native cusps, reduction in oversizing, and also evolution in the management of periprocedural conduction abnormalities,” Dr. Thourani proposed.

The hemodynamics of the valve improved from a gradient of 8.7 mm Hg at baseline to 3.9 mm Hg at 30 days and remained fairly stable out to 1 year. Paravalvular regurgitation was absent in 80.8% of patients at 30 days and mild in 18%. It improved over time, being absent in 93.5% at 6 months and in 92.2% at 1 year.

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling occurred over one year, with LV end systolic diameter, LV end systolic volume, LV mass, and LV mass index all decreasing significantly from baseline to one year (all P < .0001). Importantly to patients, NYHA class improved, from 32% class II, 63% class III, and 5% class IV at baseline to 54% class I, 37% class II, and 10% class III at 30 days and improving slightly out to 1 year.

These improvements resulted in better quality of life, as reflected in a 21.8-point improvement in the self-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score, with a score of 77.6 at 1 year, indicating self-perceived good health.
 

Encouraging data

During the session, Robert Bonow, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, commented that Dr. Thourani presented very encouraging data from the ALIGN-AR trial of high-risk surgical patients with significant aortic regurgitation. However, he had a couple of questions for Dr. Thourani.

One related to the efficacy data being compared with historical survival data. “So, are you planning to do a randomized study of these patients? You could argue, unlike aortic stenosis, where there’s no medical therapy, there could be medical therapies for the patients.” He noted that one-third of the patients are only in NYHA functional class II, so those patients “might do well over the long haul, with medical therapy as an agent.”

Dr. Thourani said it was an excellent question. “Doing a randomized trial with a high-risk patient [is] probably less likely,” he said. “I think there is a lot of interest among physicians on the cardiology side and on the surgery side of looking at lower-risk patients, and this could include those that are intermediate and or low risk.”

He said he believes investigators and leadership of the ALIGN-AR trial have conceived of such a trial involving all comers. “I think that’s warranted if we go into younger patients,” he said.

Dr. Bonow then asked if there was significant aortic valve calcification in the study population, because it is common with regurgitation, “which is why standard approaches are not effective ... And how does this device behave in calcified valves?” But Dr. Thourani said calcification was an exclusion criterion for this trial.

He said, “deep dives are going to come,” looking at the ventricular outcomes and also looking at a lot of the echocardiographic parameters.

Dr. Bonow related this study’s findings on ventricular remodeling to what is seen with surgical aortic valve replacement, where the ventricle decompresses within days. “And that’s predictive of good outcome if you have early data and these patients show how the ventricle remodels quickly,” he said.

The trial was supported by JenaValve. Dr. Thourani has received grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, CroiValve, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Trisol; consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, Croivalve, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has an executive role/ownership interest in DASI Simulations. Dr. Bonow had no disclosures.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with symptomatic, severe native aortic regurgitation at high surgical risk, the JenaValve Trilogy transcatheter heart valve system (JenaValve Technology) met its primary safety and efficacy endpoints, achieving a 1-year all-cause mortality rate of 7.8%.

New pacemaker implantation was 24%, similar to previously reported outcomes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, presented initial outcome results of the ALIGN-AR trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Dr. Thourani concluded that the Trilogy system provides the first dedicated transcatheter aortic valve replacement options “for symptomatic patients with moderate to severe or severe aortic regurgitation or at high risk for surgery and is well positioned to become the preferred therapy upon approval for this population.”

Currently, Trilogy is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the United States and is for investigational use only.

Untreated, severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with high mortality, especially for those with NYHA class 3 or 4 symptoms, Dr. Thourani explained. “While surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native severe AR, there are a multitude of high-risk patients who are not offered therapy.”

Off-label use of transcatheter valves for AR has been associated with “higher rates of complications, including paravalvular regurgitation and embolization,” he noted.

Dr. Thourani described the unique features of the JenaValve Trilogy valve. The system has a set of three “locators” in its own sheath that allows it to be rotated to align with the three cusps of the native aortic valve, falling into the sinuses and securely anchored to the native valve leaflets – then the valve is deployed. Inside a self-expanding nitinol frame is porcine pericardial tissue. A sealing ring provides sufficient anchoring while conforming to the annulus.

ALIGN-AR was a multicenter, single arm, non-blinded trial with follow-up out to 5 years involving patients with 3-plus or greater AR at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Exclusion criteria included an aortic root diameter greater than 5 cm, a previous prosthetic aortic valve, mitral regurgitation greater than moderate, or coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

After Trilogy valve implantation, patients were followed for 1, 6, and 12 months, as well as annually out to 5 years. Safety and efficacy endpoints were compared with prespecified performance goals. Of 180 patients enrolled, 177 were successfully implanted with the Trilogy device.

Patients had an average age of 75.5 years, 47.2% were women, 67.2% were in NYHA class III/IV, 82.8% were hypertensive, and one-third were frail. Severe AR was present in 62.4%, and 31.7% had moderate to severe AR.

The primary composite safety endpoint included all-cause mortality, any stroke, major vascular complication, major bleeding, a new pacemaker, acute kidney injury, valve dysfunction, or any intervention related to the device. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months.

The performance goal for primary efficacy was a weighted average of 25%, derived mainly from 1-year mortality figures for NYHA class I/II and class II/IV with conservative management.
 

Non-inferiority margin met

With a 25% prespecified non-inferiority margin for the primary efficacy endpoint, “We have observed a rate of 7.8%,” Dr. Thourani reported during a late-breaking clinical trials session. “The non-inferiority margin was met for the primary efficacy endpoint with a P value of less than .0001.”

“With a 40.5% prespecified non-inferiority margin of our primary safety endpoint, with a Trilogy [heart valve] we have observed a rate of 26.7%,” he said. “At 30 days there was a 2.2% mortality and a 2.2% stroke rate. There was a 26.7% primary safety endpoint, mainly driven by the 24% new pacemaker implantation rate. Without pacemaker implantation, the rate of safety events was less than 8%,” (P noninferiority < .0001).

Procedure technical success was 95%, device success 96.7%, and procedure success 92.8%. There was one ascending aortic dissection (0.6%). Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation also occurred in one patient. There were four cases of valve embolization.

Pacemaker implants occurred in 30% of patients in the first tercile enrolled and decreased to 14% for the third tercile enrolled. “Lower rates are most likely due to the change in the insertion technique, placing locators above the nadir of the native cusps, reduction in oversizing, and also evolution in the management of periprocedural conduction abnormalities,” Dr. Thourani proposed.

The hemodynamics of the valve improved from a gradient of 8.7 mm Hg at baseline to 3.9 mm Hg at 30 days and remained fairly stable out to 1 year. Paravalvular regurgitation was absent in 80.8% of patients at 30 days and mild in 18%. It improved over time, being absent in 93.5% at 6 months and in 92.2% at 1 year.

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling occurred over one year, with LV end systolic diameter, LV end systolic volume, LV mass, and LV mass index all decreasing significantly from baseline to one year (all P < .0001). Importantly to patients, NYHA class improved, from 32% class II, 63% class III, and 5% class IV at baseline to 54% class I, 37% class II, and 10% class III at 30 days and improving slightly out to 1 year.

These improvements resulted in better quality of life, as reflected in a 21.8-point improvement in the self-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score, with a score of 77.6 at 1 year, indicating self-perceived good health.
 

Encouraging data

During the session, Robert Bonow, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, commented that Dr. Thourani presented very encouraging data from the ALIGN-AR trial of high-risk surgical patients with significant aortic regurgitation. However, he had a couple of questions for Dr. Thourani.

One related to the efficacy data being compared with historical survival data. “So, are you planning to do a randomized study of these patients? You could argue, unlike aortic stenosis, where there’s no medical therapy, there could be medical therapies for the patients.” He noted that one-third of the patients are only in NYHA functional class II, so those patients “might do well over the long haul, with medical therapy as an agent.”

Dr. Thourani said it was an excellent question. “Doing a randomized trial with a high-risk patient [is] probably less likely,” he said. “I think there is a lot of interest among physicians on the cardiology side and on the surgery side of looking at lower-risk patients, and this could include those that are intermediate and or low risk.”

He said he believes investigators and leadership of the ALIGN-AR trial have conceived of such a trial involving all comers. “I think that’s warranted if we go into younger patients,” he said.

Dr. Bonow then asked if there was significant aortic valve calcification in the study population, because it is common with regurgitation, “which is why standard approaches are not effective ... And how does this device behave in calcified valves?” But Dr. Thourani said calcification was an exclusion criterion for this trial.

He said, “deep dives are going to come,” looking at the ventricular outcomes and also looking at a lot of the echocardiographic parameters.

Dr. Bonow related this study’s findings on ventricular remodeling to what is seen with surgical aortic valve replacement, where the ventricle decompresses within days. “And that’s predictive of good outcome if you have early data and these patients show how the ventricle remodels quickly,” he said.

The trial was supported by JenaValve. Dr. Thourani has received grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, CroiValve, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Trisol; consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, Croivalve, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has an executive role/ownership interest in DASI Simulations. Dr. Bonow had no disclosures.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with symptomatic, severe native aortic regurgitation at high surgical risk, the JenaValve Trilogy transcatheter heart valve system (JenaValve Technology) met its primary safety and efficacy endpoints, achieving a 1-year all-cause mortality rate of 7.8%.

New pacemaker implantation was 24%, similar to previously reported outcomes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, presented initial outcome results of the ALIGN-AR trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Dr. Thourani concluded that the Trilogy system provides the first dedicated transcatheter aortic valve replacement options “for symptomatic patients with moderate to severe or severe aortic regurgitation or at high risk for surgery and is well positioned to become the preferred therapy upon approval for this population.”

Currently, Trilogy is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the United States and is for investigational use only.

Untreated, severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with high mortality, especially for those with NYHA class 3 or 4 symptoms, Dr. Thourani explained. “While surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native severe AR, there are a multitude of high-risk patients who are not offered therapy.”

Off-label use of transcatheter valves for AR has been associated with “higher rates of complications, including paravalvular regurgitation and embolization,” he noted.

Dr. Thourani described the unique features of the JenaValve Trilogy valve. The system has a set of three “locators” in its own sheath that allows it to be rotated to align with the three cusps of the native aortic valve, falling into the sinuses and securely anchored to the native valve leaflets – then the valve is deployed. Inside a self-expanding nitinol frame is porcine pericardial tissue. A sealing ring provides sufficient anchoring while conforming to the annulus.

ALIGN-AR was a multicenter, single arm, non-blinded trial with follow-up out to 5 years involving patients with 3-plus or greater AR at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Exclusion criteria included an aortic root diameter greater than 5 cm, a previous prosthetic aortic valve, mitral regurgitation greater than moderate, or coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

After Trilogy valve implantation, patients were followed for 1, 6, and 12 months, as well as annually out to 5 years. Safety and efficacy endpoints were compared with prespecified performance goals. Of 180 patients enrolled, 177 were successfully implanted with the Trilogy device.

Patients had an average age of 75.5 years, 47.2% were women, 67.2% were in NYHA class III/IV, 82.8% were hypertensive, and one-third were frail. Severe AR was present in 62.4%, and 31.7% had moderate to severe AR.

The primary composite safety endpoint included all-cause mortality, any stroke, major vascular complication, major bleeding, a new pacemaker, acute kidney injury, valve dysfunction, or any intervention related to the device. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months.

The performance goal for primary efficacy was a weighted average of 25%, derived mainly from 1-year mortality figures for NYHA class I/II and class II/IV with conservative management.
 

Non-inferiority margin met

With a 25% prespecified non-inferiority margin for the primary efficacy endpoint, “We have observed a rate of 7.8%,” Dr. Thourani reported during a late-breaking clinical trials session. “The non-inferiority margin was met for the primary efficacy endpoint with a P value of less than .0001.”

“With a 40.5% prespecified non-inferiority margin of our primary safety endpoint, with a Trilogy [heart valve] we have observed a rate of 26.7%,” he said. “At 30 days there was a 2.2% mortality and a 2.2% stroke rate. There was a 26.7% primary safety endpoint, mainly driven by the 24% new pacemaker implantation rate. Without pacemaker implantation, the rate of safety events was less than 8%,” (P noninferiority < .0001).

Procedure technical success was 95%, device success 96.7%, and procedure success 92.8%. There was one ascending aortic dissection (0.6%). Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation also occurred in one patient. There were four cases of valve embolization.

Pacemaker implants occurred in 30% of patients in the first tercile enrolled and decreased to 14% for the third tercile enrolled. “Lower rates are most likely due to the change in the insertion technique, placing locators above the nadir of the native cusps, reduction in oversizing, and also evolution in the management of periprocedural conduction abnormalities,” Dr. Thourani proposed.

The hemodynamics of the valve improved from a gradient of 8.7 mm Hg at baseline to 3.9 mm Hg at 30 days and remained fairly stable out to 1 year. Paravalvular regurgitation was absent in 80.8% of patients at 30 days and mild in 18%. It improved over time, being absent in 93.5% at 6 months and in 92.2% at 1 year.

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling occurred over one year, with LV end systolic diameter, LV end systolic volume, LV mass, and LV mass index all decreasing significantly from baseline to one year (all P < .0001). Importantly to patients, NYHA class improved, from 32% class II, 63% class III, and 5% class IV at baseline to 54% class I, 37% class II, and 10% class III at 30 days and improving slightly out to 1 year.

These improvements resulted in better quality of life, as reflected in a 21.8-point improvement in the self-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score, with a score of 77.6 at 1 year, indicating self-perceived good health.
 

Encouraging data

During the session, Robert Bonow, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, commented that Dr. Thourani presented very encouraging data from the ALIGN-AR trial of high-risk surgical patients with significant aortic regurgitation. However, he had a couple of questions for Dr. Thourani.

One related to the efficacy data being compared with historical survival data. “So, are you planning to do a randomized study of these patients? You could argue, unlike aortic stenosis, where there’s no medical therapy, there could be medical therapies for the patients.” He noted that one-third of the patients are only in NYHA functional class II, so those patients “might do well over the long haul, with medical therapy as an agent.”

Dr. Thourani said it was an excellent question. “Doing a randomized trial with a high-risk patient [is] probably less likely,” he said. “I think there is a lot of interest among physicians on the cardiology side and on the surgery side of looking at lower-risk patients, and this could include those that are intermediate and or low risk.”

He said he believes investigators and leadership of the ALIGN-AR trial have conceived of such a trial involving all comers. “I think that’s warranted if we go into younger patients,” he said.

Dr. Bonow then asked if there was significant aortic valve calcification in the study population, because it is common with regurgitation, “which is why standard approaches are not effective ... And how does this device behave in calcified valves?” But Dr. Thourani said calcification was an exclusion criterion for this trial.

He said, “deep dives are going to come,” looking at the ventricular outcomes and also looking at a lot of the echocardiographic parameters.

Dr. Bonow related this study’s findings on ventricular remodeling to what is seen with surgical aortic valve replacement, where the ventricle decompresses within days. “And that’s predictive of good outcome if you have early data and these patients show how the ventricle remodels quickly,” he said.

The trial was supported by JenaValve. Dr. Thourani has received grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, CroiValve, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Trisol; consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, Croivalve, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has an executive role/ownership interest in DASI Simulations. Dr. Bonow had no disclosures.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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