Mixed Topics

Localized bullous pemphigoid

Bullous pemphigoid is a systemic, autoimmune bullous disease that classically presents as widespread urticarial plaques or tense bullae with a predilection in the elderly population.¹

Localized variants of bullous pemphigoid (BP) are rare and have been reported to arise at sites of mechanical trauma, prior radiation, lymphedema, surgical scars, burns, fistulas, and ostomies.^1-3 Although the mechanism remains unclear, the Koebner phenomenon is thought to induce dysregulation of immunologic and vascular factors in sites of mechanical shear and trauma in susceptible individuals.³

Localized BP is an important entity for the dermatologist to be familiar with, as the diagnosis is often delayed. The localized, well-defined skin lesions frequently mimic contact dermatitis. In fact, previous reports have shown the most likely misdiagnosis of localized BP is acute allergic contact dermatitis, stasis dermatitis, and eczematous dermatitis.^4,5

In this patient, histopathologic examination of a biopsy revealed a subepidermal blister with numerous eosinophils. Direct immunofluorescence study of perilesional skin showed strong linear IgG and C3 deposits at the basal membrane level. Serum level of autoantibody to BP180 antigen was elevated. Bacterial culture was positive for Staphylococcus aureus. These findings were suggestive of unilateral, localized BP with superimposed bacterial infection. Initial treatment with an extended course of doxycycline 200 mg twice daily, topical triamcinolone 0.1% ointment twice daily with compression therapy, and leg elevation led to clinical improvement with healing of previous lesions on the leg. At follow-up 3 weeks later, the patient had continued to develop new bullous lesions on the trunk and upper thighs. He was subsequently started on systemic immunosuppressive therapy for generalized bullous pemphigoid.

Importantly, localized BP generally follows a more benign disease course, although long-term follow-up is recommended for monitoring given the potential risk of developing the generalized form of BP of approximately 15%.3 Topical corticosteroids and oral antibiotics are recommended as the first-line therapy in these patients, with an escalated systemic therapy if needed for disease progression.^3,5

Our case represents an important differential diagnosis to consider when evaluating an acute localized bullous eruption in an elderly patient.

Dr. Cusick and Dr. Dolohanty are with the department of dermatology, University of Rochester (N.Y.), and provided the case and photo. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Kohroh K et al. J Dermatol. 2007 Jul;34(7):482-5.

2. Nguyen T et al. Dermatology 2014;229(2):88-96.

3. Sen BB et al. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013;79(4):554.

4. Salomon RJ et al. Arch Dermatol. 1987 Mar;123(3):389-92.

5. Tran JT, Mutasim DF. Int J Dermatol. 2005 Nov;44(11):942-5.

Localized bullous pemphigoid

Bullous pemphigoid is a systemic, autoimmune bullous disease that classically presents as widespread urticarial plaques or tense bullae with a predilection in the elderly population.¹

Localized variants of bullous pemphigoid (BP) are rare and have been reported to arise at sites of mechanical trauma, prior radiation, lymphedema, surgical scars, burns, fistulas, and ostomies.^1-3 Although the mechanism remains unclear, the Koebner phenomenon is thought to induce dysregulation of immunologic and vascular factors in sites of mechanical shear and trauma in susceptible individuals.³

Localized BP is an important entity for the dermatologist to be familiar with, as the diagnosis is often delayed. The localized, well-defined skin lesions frequently mimic contact dermatitis. In fact, previous reports have shown the most likely misdiagnosis of localized BP is acute allergic contact dermatitis, stasis dermatitis, and eczematous dermatitis.^4,5

In this patient, histopathologic examination of a biopsy revealed a subepidermal blister with numerous eosinophils. Direct immunofluorescence study of perilesional skin showed strong linear IgG and C3 deposits at the basal membrane level. Serum level of autoantibody to BP180 antigen was elevated. Bacterial culture was positive for Staphylococcus aureus. These findings were suggestive of unilateral, localized BP with superimposed bacterial infection. Initial treatment with an extended course of doxycycline 200 mg twice daily, topical triamcinolone 0.1% ointment twice daily with compression therapy, and leg elevation led to clinical improvement with healing of previous lesions on the leg. At follow-up 3 weeks later, the patient had continued to develop new bullous lesions on the trunk and upper thighs. He was subsequently started on systemic immunosuppressive therapy for generalized bullous pemphigoid.

Importantly, localized BP generally follows a more benign disease course, although long-term follow-up is recommended for monitoring given the potential risk of developing the generalized form of BP of approximately 15%.3 Topical corticosteroids and oral antibiotics are recommended as the first-line therapy in these patients, with an escalated systemic therapy if needed for disease progression.^3,5

Our case represents an important differential diagnosis to consider when evaluating an acute localized bullous eruption in an elderly patient.

Dr. Cusick and Dr. Dolohanty are with the department of dermatology, University of Rochester (N.Y.), and provided the case and photo. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Kohroh K et al. J Dermatol. 2007 Jul;34(7):482-5.

2. Nguyen T et al. Dermatology 2014;229(2):88-96.

3. Sen BB et al. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013;79(4):554.

4. Salomon RJ et al. Arch Dermatol. 1987 Mar;123(3):389-92.

5. Tran JT, Mutasim DF. Int J Dermatol. 2005 Nov;44(11):942-5.

Localized bullous pemphigoid

Bullous pemphigoid is a systemic, autoimmune bullous disease that classically presents as widespread urticarial plaques or tense bullae with a predilection in the elderly population.¹

Localized variants of bullous pemphigoid (BP) are rare and have been reported to arise at sites of mechanical trauma, prior radiation, lymphedema, surgical scars, burns, fistulas, and ostomies.^1-3 Although the mechanism remains unclear, the Koebner phenomenon is thought to induce dysregulation of immunologic and vascular factors in sites of mechanical shear and trauma in susceptible individuals.³

Localized BP is an important entity for the dermatologist to be familiar with, as the diagnosis is often delayed. The localized, well-defined skin lesions frequently mimic contact dermatitis. In fact, previous reports have shown the most likely misdiagnosis of localized BP is acute allergic contact dermatitis, stasis dermatitis, and eczematous dermatitis.^4,5

In this patient, histopathologic examination of a biopsy revealed a subepidermal blister with numerous eosinophils. Direct immunofluorescence study of perilesional skin showed strong linear IgG and C3 deposits at the basal membrane level. Serum level of autoantibody to BP180 antigen was elevated. Bacterial culture was positive for Staphylococcus aureus. These findings were suggestive of unilateral, localized BP with superimposed bacterial infection. Initial treatment with an extended course of doxycycline 200 mg twice daily, topical triamcinolone 0.1% ointment twice daily with compression therapy, and leg elevation led to clinical improvement with healing of previous lesions on the leg. At follow-up 3 weeks later, the patient had continued to develop new bullous lesions on the trunk and upper thighs. He was subsequently started on systemic immunosuppressive therapy for generalized bullous pemphigoid.

Importantly, localized BP generally follows a more benign disease course, although long-term follow-up is recommended for monitoring given the potential risk of developing the generalized form of BP of approximately 15%.3 Topical corticosteroids and oral antibiotics are recommended as the first-line therapy in these patients, with an escalated systemic therapy if needed for disease progression.^3,5

Our case represents an important differential diagnosis to consider when evaluating an acute localized bullous eruption in an elderly patient.

Dr. Cusick and Dr. Dolohanty are with the department of dermatology, University of Rochester (N.Y.), and provided the case and photo. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Kohroh K et al. J Dermatol. 2007 Jul;34(7):482-5.

2. Nguyen T et al. Dermatology 2014;229(2):88-96.

3. Sen BB et al. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013;79(4):554.

4. Salomon RJ et al. Arch Dermatol. 1987 Mar;123(3):389-92.

5. Tran JT, Mutasim DF. Int J Dermatol. 2005 Nov;44(11):942-5.

There has been increasing attention focused on the lack of diversity within dermatology academic and residency programs.^1-6 Several factors have been identified as contributing to this narrow pipeline of qualified applicants, including lack of mentorship, delayed exposure to the field, implicit bias, and lack of an overall holistic review of applications with overemphasis on board scores.^1,5 In an effort to provide guidance to underrepresented in medicine (UIM) students who are interested in dermatology, the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) has created a detailed, step-by-step guide on how to obtain a position in a dermatology residency program,⁷ which was modeled after a similar resource created by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.⁸ Here, we highlight the main SOCS recommendations to help guide medical students through a systematic approach to becoming successful applicants for dermatology residency.

Start Early

Competitive fields such as dermatology require intentional efforts starting at the beginning of medical school. Regardless of what specialty is right for you, begin by constructing a well-rounded application for residency immediately. Start by shadowing dermatologists and attending Grand Rounds held in your institution’s dermatology department to ensure that this field is right for you. Students are encouraged to meet with academic advisors and upperclassmen to seek guidance on gaining early exposure to dermatology at their home institutions (or nearby programs) during their first year. As a platform for learning about community-based dermatology activities, join your school’s Dermatology Interest Group, keeping in mind that an executive position in such a group can help foster relationships with faculty and residents of the dermatology department. A long-term commitment to community service also contributes to your depth as an applicant. Getting involved early helps students uncover health disparities in medicine and allows time to formulate ideas to implement change. Forming a well-rounded application mandates maintaining good academic standing, and students should prioritize mastering the curriculum, excelling in clinical rotations, and studying for the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).

Choose a Mentor

The summer between your first and second years of medical school is an opportune time to explore research opportunities. Students successfully complete research by taking ownership of a project, efficiently meeting deadlines, maintaining contact with research mentors by quickly responding to emails, and producing quality work. Research outside of dermatology also is valued. Research mentors often provide future letters of recommendation, so commit to doing an outstanding job. For those finding it difficult to locate a mentor, consider searching the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)(https://www.aad.org/mentorship/) or SOCS (https://skinofcolorsociety.org/) websites. The AAD has an established Diversity Mentorship Program (https://www.aad.org/member/career/volunteer/diversity-mentorship) that provides members with direct guidance from dermatologists for 4 weeks. Students use this time to conduct research, learn more about the specialty, and foster a relationship with their mentor. Students can apply any year of medical school; however, the typical awardee usually is a third-year or fourth-year student. The AAD may provide a stipend to help offset expenses.

Prepare for Boards

Second year is a continuation of the agenda set forth in first year, now with the focus shifting toward board preparation and excelling in clinical core didactics and rotations. According to data from the 2018 National Resident Matching Program,⁹ the mean USMLE Step 1 score for US allopathic senior medical students who matched into dermatology was 249 compared to 241 who did not match into dermatology. However, the mean score is just that—a mean—and people have matched with lower scores. Do not be intimidated by this number; instead, be driven to commit the time and resources to master the content and do your personal best on the USMLE Step examinations. Given the shift in some programs for earlier clinical exposure and postponement of boards until the third year, the recommendations in this timeline can be catered to fit a medical student’s specific situation.

Build Your Application

The third year of medical school is a busy year. Prepare for third-year clinical rotations by speaking with upperclassmen and clinical preceptors as you progress through your rotations. Evaluations and recommendations are weighed heavily by residency program directors, as this information is used to ascertain your clinical abilities. Seek feedback from your preceptors early and often with a sincere attempt to integrate suggested improvements. Schedule a dermatology rotation at your home institution after completing the core rotations. Although they are not required, applicants may complete away rotations early in their fourth year; the application period for visiting student learning opportunities typically opens April 1 of the third year, if not earlier. Free resources are available to help prepare for your dermatology rotations. Start by reviewing the Basic Dermatology Curriculum on the AAD website (https://www.aad.org/member/education/residents/bdc). Make contributions to your Electronic Residency Application Service account by thinking about letter writers, your personal statement, scheduling the USMLE Step 2, and completing any pending publications.

Interviewing for Residency

During your fourth year of medical school, you will be completing dermatology rotations, submitting your applications through the Electronic Residency Application Service, and interviewing with residency programs. When deciding which programs to apply to, consider referencing the American Medical Association Residency and Fellowship Database (https://freida.ama-assn.org/Freida/#/). Also keep in mind that, depending on your competitiveness, you should expect to receive 1 interview for every 10 programs you apply to, thus the application process can be quite costly. It is highly encouraged that you ask for letters of recommendation prior to August 15 and that you submit your applications by September 15. Complete mock interviews with a mentor and research commonly asked questions. Prior to your interview day, you want to spend time researching the program, browsing faculty publications, and reviewing your application. Dress in a comfortable suit, shoes, and minimal accessories; arrive early knowing that your interview begins even before you meet your interviewer, so treat everyone you meet with respect. Refrain from speaking to anyone in a casual way and have questions prepared to ask each interviewer. After your interviews, be sure to write thank you notes or emails if a program does not specifically discourage postinterview communication. Continuous efforts will improve your success in obtaining a dermatology residency position.

Final Thoughts

Recent articles have underscored and emphasized the importance of diversity in our field, with a call to action to find meaningful and overdue solutions.^2,6 We acknowledge the important role that mentors play in providing timely, honest, and encouraging guidance to UIM students interested in careers in dermatology. We hope to provide readily available and detailed guidance to these students on how they can present themselves as excellent and qualified applicants through this summary and other platforms.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the members of the SOCS Diversity Task Force for their assistance in creating the original guide.

There has been increasing attention focused on the lack of diversity within dermatology academic and residency programs.^1-6 Several factors have been identified as contributing to this narrow pipeline of qualified applicants, including lack of mentorship, delayed exposure to the field, implicit bias, and lack of an overall holistic review of applications with overemphasis on board scores.^1,5 In an effort to provide guidance to underrepresented in medicine (UIM) students who are interested in dermatology, the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) has created a detailed, step-by-step guide on how to obtain a position in a dermatology residency program,⁷ which was modeled after a similar resource created by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.⁸ Here, we highlight the main SOCS recommendations to help guide medical students through a systematic approach to becoming successful applicants for dermatology residency.

Start Early

Competitive fields such as dermatology require intentional efforts starting at the beginning of medical school. Regardless of what specialty is right for you, begin by constructing a well-rounded application for residency immediately. Start by shadowing dermatologists and attending Grand Rounds held in your institution’s dermatology department to ensure that this field is right for you. Students are encouraged to meet with academic advisors and upperclassmen to seek guidance on gaining early exposure to dermatology at their home institutions (or nearby programs) during their first year. As a platform for learning about community-based dermatology activities, join your school’s Dermatology Interest Group, keeping in mind that an executive position in such a group can help foster relationships with faculty and residents of the dermatology department. A long-term commitment to community service also contributes to your depth as an applicant. Getting involved early helps students uncover health disparities in medicine and allows time to formulate ideas to implement change. Forming a well-rounded application mandates maintaining good academic standing, and students should prioritize mastering the curriculum, excelling in clinical rotations, and studying for the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).

Choose a Mentor

The summer between your first and second years of medical school is an opportune time to explore research opportunities. Students successfully complete research by taking ownership of a project, efficiently meeting deadlines, maintaining contact with research mentors by quickly responding to emails, and producing quality work. Research outside of dermatology also is valued. Research mentors often provide future letters of recommendation, so commit to doing an outstanding job. For those finding it difficult to locate a mentor, consider searching the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)(https://www.aad.org/mentorship/) or SOCS (https://skinofcolorsociety.org/) websites. The AAD has an established Diversity Mentorship Program (https://www.aad.org/member/career/volunteer/diversity-mentorship) that provides members with direct guidance from dermatologists for 4 weeks. Students use this time to conduct research, learn more about the specialty, and foster a relationship with their mentor. Students can apply any year of medical school; however, the typical awardee usually is a third-year or fourth-year student. The AAD may provide a stipend to help offset expenses.

Prepare for Boards

Second year is a continuation of the agenda set forth in first year, now with the focus shifting toward board preparation and excelling in clinical core didactics and rotations. According to data from the 2018 National Resident Matching Program,⁹ the mean USMLE Step 1 score for US allopathic senior medical students who matched into dermatology was 249 compared to 241 who did not match into dermatology. However, the mean score is just that—a mean—and people have matched with lower scores. Do not be intimidated by this number; instead, be driven to commit the time and resources to master the content and do your personal best on the USMLE Step examinations. Given the shift in some programs for earlier clinical exposure and postponement of boards until the third year, the recommendations in this timeline can be catered to fit a medical student’s specific situation.

Build Your Application

The third year of medical school is a busy year. Prepare for third-year clinical rotations by speaking with upperclassmen and clinical preceptors as you progress through your rotations. Evaluations and recommendations are weighed heavily by residency program directors, as this information is used to ascertain your clinical abilities. Seek feedback from your preceptors early and often with a sincere attempt to integrate suggested improvements. Schedule a dermatology rotation at your home institution after completing the core rotations. Although they are not required, applicants may complete away rotations early in their fourth year; the application period for visiting student learning opportunities typically opens April 1 of the third year, if not earlier. Free resources are available to help prepare for your dermatology rotations. Start by reviewing the Basic Dermatology Curriculum on the AAD website (https://www.aad.org/member/education/residents/bdc). Make contributions to your Electronic Residency Application Service account by thinking about letter writers, your personal statement, scheduling the USMLE Step 2, and completing any pending publications.

Interviewing for Residency

During your fourth year of medical school, you will be completing dermatology rotations, submitting your applications through the Electronic Residency Application Service, and interviewing with residency programs. When deciding which programs to apply to, consider referencing the American Medical Association Residency and Fellowship Database (https://freida.ama-assn.org/Freida/#/). Also keep in mind that, depending on your competitiveness, you should expect to receive 1 interview for every 10 programs you apply to, thus the application process can be quite costly. It is highly encouraged that you ask for letters of recommendation prior to August 15 and that you submit your applications by September 15. Complete mock interviews with a mentor and research commonly asked questions. Prior to your interview day, you want to spend time researching the program, browsing faculty publications, and reviewing your application. Dress in a comfortable suit, shoes, and minimal accessories; arrive early knowing that your interview begins even before you meet your interviewer, so treat everyone you meet with respect. Refrain from speaking to anyone in a casual way and have questions prepared to ask each interviewer. After your interviews, be sure to write thank you notes or emails if a program does not specifically discourage postinterview communication. Continuous efforts will improve your success in obtaining a dermatology residency position.

Final Thoughts

Recent articles have underscored and emphasized the importance of diversity in our field, with a call to action to find meaningful and overdue solutions.^2,6 We acknowledge the important role that mentors play in providing timely, honest, and encouraging guidance to UIM students interested in careers in dermatology. We hope to provide readily available and detailed guidance to these students on how they can present themselves as excellent and qualified applicants through this summary and other platforms.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the members of the SOCS Diversity Task Force for their assistance in creating the original guide.

There has been increasing attention focused on the lack of diversity within dermatology academic and residency programs.^1-6 Several factors have been identified as contributing to this narrow pipeline of qualified applicants, including lack of mentorship, delayed exposure to the field, implicit bias, and lack of an overall holistic review of applications with overemphasis on board scores.^1,5 In an effort to provide guidance to underrepresented in medicine (UIM) students who are interested in dermatology, the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) has created a detailed, step-by-step guide on how to obtain a position in a dermatology residency program,⁷ which was modeled after a similar resource created by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.⁸ Here, we highlight the main SOCS recommendations to help guide medical students through a systematic approach to becoming successful applicants for dermatology residency.

Start Early

Competitive fields such as dermatology require intentional efforts starting at the beginning of medical school. Regardless of what specialty is right for you, begin by constructing a well-rounded application for residency immediately. Start by shadowing dermatologists and attending Grand Rounds held in your institution’s dermatology department to ensure that this field is right for you. Students are encouraged to meet with academic advisors and upperclassmen to seek guidance on gaining early exposure to dermatology at their home institutions (or nearby programs) during their first year. As a platform for learning about community-based dermatology activities, join your school’s Dermatology Interest Group, keeping in mind that an executive position in such a group can help foster relationships with faculty and residents of the dermatology department. A long-term commitment to community service also contributes to your depth as an applicant. Getting involved early helps students uncover health disparities in medicine and allows time to formulate ideas to implement change. Forming a well-rounded application mandates maintaining good academic standing, and students should prioritize mastering the curriculum, excelling in clinical rotations, and studying for the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).

Choose a Mentor

The summer between your first and second years of medical school is an opportune time to explore research opportunities. Students successfully complete research by taking ownership of a project, efficiently meeting deadlines, maintaining contact with research mentors by quickly responding to emails, and producing quality work. Research outside of dermatology also is valued. Research mentors often provide future letters of recommendation, so commit to doing an outstanding job. For those finding it difficult to locate a mentor, consider searching the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)(https://www.aad.org/mentorship/) or SOCS (https://skinofcolorsociety.org/) websites. The AAD has an established Diversity Mentorship Program (https://www.aad.org/member/career/volunteer/diversity-mentorship) that provides members with direct guidance from dermatologists for 4 weeks. Students use this time to conduct research, learn more about the specialty, and foster a relationship with their mentor. Students can apply any year of medical school; however, the typical awardee usually is a third-year or fourth-year student. The AAD may provide a stipend to help offset expenses.

Prepare for Boards

Second year is a continuation of the agenda set forth in first year, now with the focus shifting toward board preparation and excelling in clinical core didactics and rotations. According to data from the 2018 National Resident Matching Program,⁹ the mean USMLE Step 1 score for US allopathic senior medical students who matched into dermatology was 249 compared to 241 who did not match into dermatology. However, the mean score is just that—a mean—and people have matched with lower scores. Do not be intimidated by this number; instead, be driven to commit the time and resources to master the content and do your personal best on the USMLE Step examinations. Given the shift in some programs for earlier clinical exposure and postponement of boards until the third year, the recommendations in this timeline can be catered to fit a medical student’s specific situation.

Build Your Application

The third year of medical school is a busy year. Prepare for third-year clinical rotations by speaking with upperclassmen and clinical preceptors as you progress through your rotations. Evaluations and recommendations are weighed heavily by residency program directors, as this information is used to ascertain your clinical abilities. Seek feedback from your preceptors early and often with a sincere attempt to integrate suggested improvements. Schedule a dermatology rotation at your home institution after completing the core rotations. Although they are not required, applicants may complete away rotations early in their fourth year; the application period for visiting student learning opportunities typically opens April 1 of the third year, if not earlier. Free resources are available to help prepare for your dermatology rotations. Start by reviewing the Basic Dermatology Curriculum on the AAD website (https://www.aad.org/member/education/residents/bdc). Make contributions to your Electronic Residency Application Service account by thinking about letter writers, your personal statement, scheduling the USMLE Step 2, and completing any pending publications.

Interviewing for Residency

During your fourth year of medical school, you will be completing dermatology rotations, submitting your applications through the Electronic Residency Application Service, and interviewing with residency programs. When deciding which programs to apply to, consider referencing the American Medical Association Residency and Fellowship Database (https://freida.ama-assn.org/Freida/#/). Also keep in mind that, depending on your competitiveness, you should expect to receive 1 interview for every 10 programs you apply to, thus the application process can be quite costly. It is highly encouraged that you ask for letters of recommendation prior to August 15 and that you submit your applications by September 15. Complete mock interviews with a mentor and research commonly asked questions. Prior to your interview day, you want to spend time researching the program, browsing faculty publications, and reviewing your application. Dress in a comfortable suit, shoes, and minimal accessories; arrive early knowing that your interview begins even before you meet your interviewer, so treat everyone you meet with respect. Refrain from speaking to anyone in a casual way and have questions prepared to ask each interviewer. After your interviews, be sure to write thank you notes or emails if a program does not specifically discourage postinterview communication. Continuous efforts will improve your success in obtaining a dermatology residency position.

Final Thoughts

Recent articles have underscored and emphasized the importance of diversity in our field, with a call to action to find meaningful and overdue solutions.^2,6 We acknowledge the important role that mentors play in providing timely, honest, and encouraging guidance to UIM students interested in careers in dermatology. We hope to provide readily available and detailed guidance to these students on how they can present themselves as excellent and qualified applicants through this summary and other platforms.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the members of the SOCS Diversity Task Force for their assistance in creating the original guide.

The Diagnosis: Nevus Comedonicus 

Dermoscopy showed multiple dilated follicular openings plugged with keratinous material (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed dilated follicular infundibula with dilation and orthokeratotic plugging (Figure 2). Routine laboratory tests including complete blood cell count and blood chemistry were within reference range. Thus, on the basis of clinical, dermoscopy, and histopathological findings, a diagnosis of nevus comedonicus (NC) was made. The patient refused treatment for cosmetic reasons.  

Nevus comedonicus is a rare hamartoma first described by Kofmann¹ in 1895. It is thought to be a developmental defect of the pilosebaceous unit; the resulting structure is unable to produce mature hairs, matrix cells, or sebaceous glands and is capable only of forming soft keratin.² Clinically, it is characterized by closely grouped papules with hyperkeratotic plugs that mimic comedones. It has a predilection for the face, neck, and trunk area. Nevertheless, scalp involvement rarely has been reported in the literature.^2-4 Nevus comedonicus usually appears at birth or during childhood and generally is asymptomatic; however, an inflammatory variant of NC with cyst formation and recurrent infections also has been described.⁵ Moreover, a syndromic variant was reported and characterized by a combination of NC with ocular, skeletal, or neurological defects.⁵ Most lesions grow proportionately with age and usually stabilize by late adolescence.² Our patient's plaque increased in size with age. No triggering factors were found. Although NC usually has a benign course, squamous cell carcinoma arising in NC has been reported.⁶ Consequently, routine surveillance is necessary.  

Diagnosis often is easily made by considering the characteristic morphology of the lesions and the early age of its appearance. However, in atypical NC presentations, acne, seborrheic keratosis, porokeratotic eccrine ostial and dermal duct nevus, folliculotropic mycosis fungoides, Favre-Racouchot syndrome, or familial dyskeratotic comedones should be considered. Dermoscopy has been reported to be useful in the diagnosis of NC. Typical dermoscopy findings are numerous circular and barrel-shaped homogenous areas in light and dark brown shades with remarkable keratin plugs.^7,8 

Folliculotropic mycosis fungoides is a variant of mycosis fungoides characterized by hair follicle invasion of mature, CD4⁺, small, lymphoid cells with cerebriform nuclei.⁹ Patients may present with grouped follicular papules that preferentially involve the head and neck area. It typically occurs in adults but occasionally may affect children. Histopathology is characterized by the presence of folliculotropic infiltrates with variable infiltration of the follicular epithelium, often with sparing of the epidermis. Familial dyskeratotic comedones, rare autosomal-dominant genodermatoses, clinically are characterized by symmetrically scattered comedonelike hyperkeratotic papules. These lesions appear around puberty and show a predilection for the trunk, arms, and face. Histopathology reveals craterlike invaginations filled with keratinous material and evidence of dyskeratosis. Porokeratotic eccrine ostial and dermal duct nevus is a rare adnexal hamartoma with eccrine differentiation. It is characterized by asymptomatic grouped keratotic papules and plaques. The lesions usually present at birth or in childhood and favor the palms and soles. Widespread involvement along Blaschko lines also can occur. Cornoid lamella involving an eccrine duct is the characteristic histopathologic feature of this condition.⁹ 

Treatment of NC is essentially reserved for cosmetic reasons or when there are complications such as discomfort or infection. Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, topical retinoids, and keratolytic agents such as ammonium lactate or salicylic acid.¹⁰ The use of oral isotretinoin is controversial.² Surgical excision is useful for localized lesions. Nevus comedonicus, especially occurring at unusual sites such as the scalp, is uncommon. Therefore, a high index of suspicion is required to reach a diagnosis. 

The Diagnosis: Nevus Comedonicus 

Dermoscopy showed multiple dilated follicular openings plugged with keratinous material (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed dilated follicular infundibula with dilation and orthokeratotic plugging (Figure 2). Routine laboratory tests including complete blood cell count and blood chemistry were within reference range. Thus, on the basis of clinical, dermoscopy, and histopathological findings, a diagnosis of nevus comedonicus (NC) was made. The patient refused treatment for cosmetic reasons.  

Nevus comedonicus is a rare hamartoma first described by Kofmann¹ in 1895. It is thought to be a developmental defect of the pilosebaceous unit; the resulting structure is unable to produce mature hairs, matrix cells, or sebaceous glands and is capable only of forming soft keratin.² Clinically, it is characterized by closely grouped papules with hyperkeratotic plugs that mimic comedones. It has a predilection for the face, neck, and trunk area. Nevertheless, scalp involvement rarely has been reported in the literature.^2-4 Nevus comedonicus usually appears at birth or during childhood and generally is asymptomatic; however, an inflammatory variant of NC with cyst formation and recurrent infections also has been described.⁵ Moreover, a syndromic variant was reported and characterized by a combination of NC with ocular, skeletal, or neurological defects.⁵ Most lesions grow proportionately with age and usually stabilize by late adolescence.² Our patient's plaque increased in size with age. No triggering factors were found. Although NC usually has a benign course, squamous cell carcinoma arising in NC has been reported.⁶ Consequently, routine surveillance is necessary.  

Diagnosis often is easily made by considering the characteristic morphology of the lesions and the early age of its appearance. However, in atypical NC presentations, acne, seborrheic keratosis, porokeratotic eccrine ostial and dermal duct nevus, folliculotropic mycosis fungoides, Favre-Racouchot syndrome, or familial dyskeratotic comedones should be considered. Dermoscopy has been reported to be useful in the diagnosis of NC. Typical dermoscopy findings are numerous circular and barrel-shaped homogenous areas in light and dark brown shades with remarkable keratin plugs.^7,8 

Folliculotropic mycosis fungoides is a variant of mycosis fungoides characterized by hair follicle invasion of mature, CD4⁺, small, lymphoid cells with cerebriform nuclei.⁹ Patients may present with grouped follicular papules that preferentially involve the head and neck area. It typically occurs in adults but occasionally may affect children. Histopathology is characterized by the presence of folliculotropic infiltrates with variable infiltration of the follicular epithelium, often with sparing of the epidermis. Familial dyskeratotic comedones, rare autosomal-dominant genodermatoses, clinically are characterized by symmetrically scattered comedonelike hyperkeratotic papules. These lesions appear around puberty and show a predilection for the trunk, arms, and face. Histopathology reveals craterlike invaginations filled with keratinous material and evidence of dyskeratosis. Porokeratotic eccrine ostial and dermal duct nevus is a rare adnexal hamartoma with eccrine differentiation. It is characterized by asymptomatic grouped keratotic papules and plaques. The lesions usually present at birth or in childhood and favor the palms and soles. Widespread involvement along Blaschko lines also can occur. Cornoid lamella involving an eccrine duct is the characteristic histopathologic feature of this condition.⁹ 

Treatment of NC is essentially reserved for cosmetic reasons or when there are complications such as discomfort or infection. Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, topical retinoids, and keratolytic agents such as ammonium lactate or salicylic acid.¹⁰ The use of oral isotretinoin is controversial.² Surgical excision is useful for localized lesions. Nevus comedonicus, especially occurring at unusual sites such as the scalp, is uncommon. Therefore, a high index of suspicion is required to reach a diagnosis. 

The Diagnosis: Nevus Comedonicus 

Dermoscopy showed multiple dilated follicular openings plugged with keratinous material (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed dilated follicular infundibula with dilation and orthokeratotic plugging (Figure 2). Routine laboratory tests including complete blood cell count and blood chemistry were within reference range. Thus, on the basis of clinical, dermoscopy, and histopathological findings, a diagnosis of nevus comedonicus (NC) was made. The patient refused treatment for cosmetic reasons.  

Nevus comedonicus is a rare hamartoma first described by Kofmann¹ in 1895. It is thought to be a developmental defect of the pilosebaceous unit; the resulting structure is unable to produce mature hairs, matrix cells, or sebaceous glands and is capable only of forming soft keratin.² Clinically, it is characterized by closely grouped papules with hyperkeratotic plugs that mimic comedones. It has a predilection for the face, neck, and trunk area. Nevertheless, scalp involvement rarely has been reported in the literature.^2-4 Nevus comedonicus usually appears at birth or during childhood and generally is asymptomatic; however, an inflammatory variant of NC with cyst formation and recurrent infections also has been described.⁵ Moreover, a syndromic variant was reported and characterized by a combination of NC with ocular, skeletal, or neurological defects.⁵ Most lesions grow proportionately with age and usually stabilize by late adolescence.² Our patient's plaque increased in size with age. No triggering factors were found. Although NC usually has a benign course, squamous cell carcinoma arising in NC has been reported.⁶ Consequently, routine surveillance is necessary.  

Diagnosis often is easily made by considering the characteristic morphology of the lesions and the early age of its appearance. However, in atypical NC presentations, acne, seborrheic keratosis, porokeratotic eccrine ostial and dermal duct nevus, folliculotropic mycosis fungoides, Favre-Racouchot syndrome, or familial dyskeratotic comedones should be considered. Dermoscopy has been reported to be useful in the diagnosis of NC. Typical dermoscopy findings are numerous circular and barrel-shaped homogenous areas in light and dark brown shades with remarkable keratin plugs.^7,8 

Folliculotropic mycosis fungoides is a variant of mycosis fungoides characterized by hair follicle invasion of mature, CD4⁺, small, lymphoid cells with cerebriform nuclei.⁹ Patients may present with grouped follicular papules that preferentially involve the head and neck area. It typically occurs in adults but occasionally may affect children. Histopathology is characterized by the presence of folliculotropic infiltrates with variable infiltration of the follicular epithelium, often with sparing of the epidermis. Familial dyskeratotic comedones, rare autosomal-dominant genodermatoses, clinically are characterized by symmetrically scattered comedonelike hyperkeratotic papules. These lesions appear around puberty and show a predilection for the trunk, arms, and face. Histopathology reveals craterlike invaginations filled with keratinous material and evidence of dyskeratosis. Porokeratotic eccrine ostial and dermal duct nevus is a rare adnexal hamartoma with eccrine differentiation. It is characterized by asymptomatic grouped keratotic papules and plaques. The lesions usually present at birth or in childhood and favor the palms and soles. Widespread involvement along Blaschko lines also can occur. Cornoid lamella involving an eccrine duct is the characteristic histopathologic feature of this condition.⁹ 

Treatment of NC is essentially reserved for cosmetic reasons or when there are complications such as discomfort or infection. Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, topical retinoids, and keratolytic agents such as ammonium lactate or salicylic acid.¹⁰ The use of oral isotretinoin is controversial.² Surgical excision is useful for localized lesions. Nevus comedonicus, especially occurring at unusual sites such as the scalp, is uncommon. Therefore, a high index of suspicion is required to reach a diagnosis. 

Most physicians get an annual performance review, and may be either elated, disappointed, or confused with their rating.

But some physicians say the right factors aren’t being evaluated or, in many cases, the performance measures promote efforts that are counterproductive.

“Bonuses are a behaviorist approach,” said Richard Gunderman, MD, professor in the schools of medicine, liberal arts, and philanthropy at Indiana University, Indianapolis. “The presumption is that people will change if they get some money – that they will do what the incentive wants them to do and refrain from what it doesn’t want them to do.”

Dr. Gunderman said this often means just going through the motions to get the bonus, and not sharing goals that only the administration cares about. “The goals might be to lower costs, ensure compliance with regulations or billing requirements, or make patterns of care more uniform. These are not changes that are well tailored to what patients want or how doctors think.”

The bonus is a central feature of the annual review. Merritt Hawkins, the physician search firm, reported that 75% of the physician jobs that it searches for involve some kind of production bonus. Bonuses often make up at least 5% of total compensation, but they can be quite hefty in some specialties.

Having to fulfill measures that they’re not excited about can lead physicians to feel disengaged from their work, Dr. Gunderman said. And this disengagement can contribute to physician burnout, which has climbed to very high rates in recent years.

A 2018 paper by two physician leadership experts explored this problem with bonuses. “A growing consensus [of experts] suggests that quality-incentive pay isn’t paying the dividends first envisioned,” they wrote.

The problem is that the measurements tied to a bonus represent an extrinsic motivation – involving goals that doctors don’t really believe in. Instead, physicians need to be intrinsically motivated. They need to be inspired “to manage their own lives,” “to get better at something,” and “to be a part of a larger cause,” they wrote.

How to develop a better review process

“The best way to motivate improved performance is through purpose and mission,” said Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group in California and now a lecturer on strategy at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The review process, Dr. Pearl said, should inspire physicians to do better. The doctors should be asking themselves: “How well did we do in helping maximize the health of all of our patients? And how well did we do in avoiding medical errors, preventing complications, meeting the needs of our patients, and achieving superior quality outcomes?”

When he was CEO of Permanente, the huge physician group that works exclusively for health maintenance organization Kaiser, Dr. Pearl and fellow leaders revamped the review system that all Permanente physicians undergo.

First, the Permanente executives provided all physicians with everyone’s patient-satisfaction data, including their own. That way, each physician could compare performance with others and assess strengths and weaknesses. Then Permanente offered educational programs so that physicians could get help in meeting their goals.

“This approach helped improve quality of care, patient satisfaction, and fulfillment of physicians,” Dr. Pearl said. Kaiser Permanente earned the highest health plan member satisfaction rating by J.D. Power and higher rankings by the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Permanente does not base the bonus on relative value units but on performance measures that are carefully balanced to avoid too much focus on certain measures. “There needs to be an array of quality measures because doctors deal with a complex set of problems,” Dr. Pearl said. For example, a primary care physician at Permanente is assessed on about 30 different measures.

Physicians are more likely to be successful when you emphasize collaboration. Dr. Pearl said.

Although Permanente physicians are compared with each other, they are not pitted against each other but rather are asked to collaborate. “Physicians are more likely to be successful when you emphasize collaboration,” he said. “They can teach each other. You can be good at some things, and your colleague can be good at others.”

Permanente still has one-on-one yearly evaluations, but much of the assessment work is done in monthly meetings within each department. “There, small groups of doctors look at their data and discuss how each of them can improve,” Dr. Pearl noted.

The 360-degree review is valuable but has some problems

Physicians should be getting a lot more feedback about their behavior than they are actually getting, according to Milton Hammerly, MD, chief medical officer at QualChoice Health Insurance in Little Rock, Ark.

“After residency, you get very little feedback on your work,” said Dr. Hammerly, who used to work for a hospital system. “Annual reviews for physicians focus almost exclusively on outcomes, productivity, and quality metrics, but not on people skills, what is called ‘emotional intelligence.’ ”

Dr. Hammerly said he saw the consequence of this lack of education when he was vice president for medical affairs at the hospital system. He was constantly dealing with physicians who exhibited serious disruptive behavior and had to be disciplined. “If only they had gotten a little help earlier on,” he noted.

Dr. Hammerly said that 360-degree evaluations, which are common in corporations but rarely used for physicians, could benefit the profession. He discovered the 360-degree evaluation when it was used for him at QualChoice, and he has been a fan ever since.

The approach involves collecting evaluations of you from your boss, your peers, and from people who work for you. That is, from 360 degrees around you. These people are asked to rate your strengths and weaknesses in a variety of competencies. In this way, you get feedback from all of your work relationships, not just from your boss.

Ideally, the evaluators are anonymous, and the subject works with a facilitator to process the information. But 360-degree evaluations can be done in all kinds of ways.

Critics of the 360-degree evaluations say the usual anonymity of evaluators allows them to be too harsh. Also, evaluators may be too subjective: What they say about you says more about their own perspective than anything about you.

But many people think 360-degree evaluations are at least going in the right direction, because they focus on people skills rather than just meeting metrics.

Robert Centor, MD, an internist in Birmingham, Ala., and a member of the performance measures committee of the American College of Physicians, said the best way to improve performance is to have conversations about your work with colleagues on the department level. “For example, 20 doctors could meet to discuss a certain issue, such as the need for more vaccinations. That doesn’t have to get rewarded with a bonus payment.”

Dr. Pearl said that “doctors need feedback from their colleagues. Without feedback, how else do you get better? You can only improve if you can know how you’re performing, compared to others.”

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

Most physicians get an annual performance review, and may be either elated, disappointed, or confused with their rating.

But some physicians say the right factors aren’t being evaluated or, in many cases, the performance measures promote efforts that are counterproductive.

“Bonuses are a behaviorist approach,” said Richard Gunderman, MD, professor in the schools of medicine, liberal arts, and philanthropy at Indiana University, Indianapolis. “The presumption is that people will change if they get some money – that they will do what the incentive wants them to do and refrain from what it doesn’t want them to do.”

Dr. Gunderman said this often means just going through the motions to get the bonus, and not sharing goals that only the administration cares about. “The goals might be to lower costs, ensure compliance with regulations or billing requirements, or make patterns of care more uniform. These are not changes that are well tailored to what patients want or how doctors think.”

The bonus is a central feature of the annual review. Merritt Hawkins, the physician search firm, reported that 75% of the physician jobs that it searches for involve some kind of production bonus. Bonuses often make up at least 5% of total compensation, but they can be quite hefty in some specialties.

Having to fulfill measures that they’re not excited about can lead physicians to feel disengaged from their work, Dr. Gunderman said. And this disengagement can contribute to physician burnout, which has climbed to very high rates in recent years.

A 2018 paper by two physician leadership experts explored this problem with bonuses. “A growing consensus [of experts] suggests that quality-incentive pay isn’t paying the dividends first envisioned,” they wrote.

The problem is that the measurements tied to a bonus represent an extrinsic motivation – involving goals that doctors don’t really believe in. Instead, physicians need to be intrinsically motivated. They need to be inspired “to manage their own lives,” “to get better at something,” and “to be a part of a larger cause,” they wrote.

How to develop a better review process

“The best way to motivate improved performance is through purpose and mission,” said Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group in California and now a lecturer on strategy at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The review process, Dr. Pearl said, should inspire physicians to do better. The doctors should be asking themselves: “How well did we do in helping maximize the health of all of our patients? And how well did we do in avoiding medical errors, preventing complications, meeting the needs of our patients, and achieving superior quality outcomes?”

When he was CEO of Permanente, the huge physician group that works exclusively for health maintenance organization Kaiser, Dr. Pearl and fellow leaders revamped the review system that all Permanente physicians undergo.

First, the Permanente executives provided all physicians with everyone’s patient-satisfaction data, including their own. That way, each physician could compare performance with others and assess strengths and weaknesses. Then Permanente offered educational programs so that physicians could get help in meeting their goals.

“This approach helped improve quality of care, patient satisfaction, and fulfillment of physicians,” Dr. Pearl said. Kaiser Permanente earned the highest health plan member satisfaction rating by J.D. Power and higher rankings by the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Permanente does not base the bonus on relative value units but on performance measures that are carefully balanced to avoid too much focus on certain measures. “There needs to be an array of quality measures because doctors deal with a complex set of problems,” Dr. Pearl said. For example, a primary care physician at Permanente is assessed on about 30 different measures.

Physicians are more likely to be successful when you emphasize collaboration. Dr. Pearl said.

Although Permanente physicians are compared with each other, they are not pitted against each other but rather are asked to collaborate. “Physicians are more likely to be successful when you emphasize collaboration,” he said. “They can teach each other. You can be good at some things, and your colleague can be good at others.”

Permanente still has one-on-one yearly evaluations, but much of the assessment work is done in monthly meetings within each department. “There, small groups of doctors look at their data and discuss how each of them can improve,” Dr. Pearl noted.

The 360-degree review is valuable but has some problems

Physicians should be getting a lot more feedback about their behavior than they are actually getting, according to Milton Hammerly, MD, chief medical officer at QualChoice Health Insurance in Little Rock, Ark.

“After residency, you get very little feedback on your work,” said Dr. Hammerly, who used to work for a hospital system. “Annual reviews for physicians focus almost exclusively on outcomes, productivity, and quality metrics, but not on people skills, what is called ‘emotional intelligence.’ ”

Dr. Hammerly said he saw the consequence of this lack of education when he was vice president for medical affairs at the hospital system. He was constantly dealing with physicians who exhibited serious disruptive behavior and had to be disciplined. “If only they had gotten a little help earlier on,” he noted.

Dr. Hammerly said that 360-degree evaluations, which are common in corporations but rarely used for physicians, could benefit the profession. He discovered the 360-degree evaluation when it was used for him at QualChoice, and he has been a fan ever since.

The approach involves collecting evaluations of you from your boss, your peers, and from people who work for you. That is, from 360 degrees around you. These people are asked to rate your strengths and weaknesses in a variety of competencies. In this way, you get feedback from all of your work relationships, not just from your boss.

Ideally, the evaluators are anonymous, and the subject works with a facilitator to process the information. But 360-degree evaluations can be done in all kinds of ways.

Critics of the 360-degree evaluations say the usual anonymity of evaluators allows them to be too harsh. Also, evaluators may be too subjective: What they say about you says more about their own perspective than anything about you.

But many people think 360-degree evaluations are at least going in the right direction, because they focus on people skills rather than just meeting metrics.

Robert Centor, MD, an internist in Birmingham, Ala., and a member of the performance measures committee of the American College of Physicians, said the best way to improve performance is to have conversations about your work with colleagues on the department level. “For example, 20 doctors could meet to discuss a certain issue, such as the need for more vaccinations. That doesn’t have to get rewarded with a bonus payment.”

Dr. Pearl said that “doctors need feedback from their colleagues. Without feedback, how else do you get better? You can only improve if you can know how you’re performing, compared to others.”

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

Most physicians get an annual performance review, and may be either elated, disappointed, or confused with their rating.

But some physicians say the right factors aren’t being evaluated or, in many cases, the performance measures promote efforts that are counterproductive.

“Bonuses are a behaviorist approach,” said Richard Gunderman, MD, professor in the schools of medicine, liberal arts, and philanthropy at Indiana University, Indianapolis. “The presumption is that people will change if they get some money – that they will do what the incentive wants them to do and refrain from what it doesn’t want them to do.”

Dr. Gunderman said this often means just going through the motions to get the bonus, and not sharing goals that only the administration cares about. “The goals might be to lower costs, ensure compliance with regulations or billing requirements, or make patterns of care more uniform. These are not changes that are well tailored to what patients want or how doctors think.”

The bonus is a central feature of the annual review. Merritt Hawkins, the physician search firm, reported that 75% of the physician jobs that it searches for involve some kind of production bonus. Bonuses often make up at least 5% of total compensation, but they can be quite hefty in some specialties.

Having to fulfill measures that they’re not excited about can lead physicians to feel disengaged from their work, Dr. Gunderman said. And this disengagement can contribute to physician burnout, which has climbed to very high rates in recent years.

A 2018 paper by two physician leadership experts explored this problem with bonuses. “A growing consensus [of experts] suggests that quality-incentive pay isn’t paying the dividends first envisioned,” they wrote.

The problem is that the measurements tied to a bonus represent an extrinsic motivation – involving goals that doctors don’t really believe in. Instead, physicians need to be intrinsically motivated. They need to be inspired “to manage their own lives,” “to get better at something,” and “to be a part of a larger cause,” they wrote.

How to develop a better review process

“The best way to motivate improved performance is through purpose and mission,” said Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group in California and now a lecturer on strategy at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The review process, Dr. Pearl said, should inspire physicians to do better. The doctors should be asking themselves: “How well did we do in helping maximize the health of all of our patients? And how well did we do in avoiding medical errors, preventing complications, meeting the needs of our patients, and achieving superior quality outcomes?”

When he was CEO of Permanente, the huge physician group that works exclusively for health maintenance organization Kaiser, Dr. Pearl and fellow leaders revamped the review system that all Permanente physicians undergo.

First, the Permanente executives provided all physicians with everyone’s patient-satisfaction data, including their own. That way, each physician could compare performance with others and assess strengths and weaknesses. Then Permanente offered educational programs so that physicians could get help in meeting their goals.

“This approach helped improve quality of care, patient satisfaction, and fulfillment of physicians,” Dr. Pearl said. Kaiser Permanente earned the highest health plan member satisfaction rating by J.D. Power and higher rankings by the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Permanente does not base the bonus on relative value units but on performance measures that are carefully balanced to avoid too much focus on certain measures. “There needs to be an array of quality measures because doctors deal with a complex set of problems,” Dr. Pearl said. For example, a primary care physician at Permanente is assessed on about 30 different measures.

Physicians are more likely to be successful when you emphasize collaboration. Dr. Pearl said.

Although Permanente physicians are compared with each other, they are not pitted against each other but rather are asked to collaborate. “Physicians are more likely to be successful when you emphasize collaboration,” he said. “They can teach each other. You can be good at some things, and your colleague can be good at others.”

Permanente still has one-on-one yearly evaluations, but much of the assessment work is done in monthly meetings within each department. “There, small groups of doctors look at their data and discuss how each of them can improve,” Dr. Pearl noted.

The 360-degree review is valuable but has some problems

Physicians should be getting a lot more feedback about their behavior than they are actually getting, according to Milton Hammerly, MD, chief medical officer at QualChoice Health Insurance in Little Rock, Ark.

“After residency, you get very little feedback on your work,” said Dr. Hammerly, who used to work for a hospital system. “Annual reviews for physicians focus almost exclusively on outcomes, productivity, and quality metrics, but not on people skills, what is called ‘emotional intelligence.’ ”

Dr. Hammerly said he saw the consequence of this lack of education when he was vice president for medical affairs at the hospital system. He was constantly dealing with physicians who exhibited serious disruptive behavior and had to be disciplined. “If only they had gotten a little help earlier on,” he noted.

Dr. Hammerly said that 360-degree evaluations, which are common in corporations but rarely used for physicians, could benefit the profession. He discovered the 360-degree evaluation when it was used for him at QualChoice, and he has been a fan ever since.

The approach involves collecting evaluations of you from your boss, your peers, and from people who work for you. That is, from 360 degrees around you. These people are asked to rate your strengths and weaknesses in a variety of competencies. In this way, you get feedback from all of your work relationships, not just from your boss.

Ideally, the evaluators are anonymous, and the subject works with a facilitator to process the information. But 360-degree evaluations can be done in all kinds of ways.

Critics of the 360-degree evaluations say the usual anonymity of evaluators allows them to be too harsh. Also, evaluators may be too subjective: What they say about you says more about their own perspective than anything about you.

But many people think 360-degree evaluations are at least going in the right direction, because they focus on people skills rather than just meeting metrics.

Robert Centor, MD, an internist in Birmingham, Ala., and a member of the performance measures committee of the American College of Physicians, said the best way to improve performance is to have conversations about your work with colleagues on the department level. “For example, 20 doctors could meet to discuss a certain issue, such as the need for more vaccinations. That doesn’t have to get rewarded with a bonus payment.”

Dr. Pearl said that “doctors need feedback from their colleagues. Without feedback, how else do you get better? You can only improve if you can know how you’re performing, compared to others.”

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

I have always been a strong believer in meeting patients where they obtain their health information. Early in my clinical training, I realized that patients are exposed to health information through traditional media formats and, increasingly, social media, rather than brief clinical encounters. Unlike traditional media, social media allows individuals the opportunity to post information without a third-party filter. However, this opens the door for untrained individuals to spread misinformation and disinformation. In health care, this could potentially disrupt public health efforts. Even innocent mistakes like overlooking the appropriate clinical context can cause issues. Traditional media outlets also have agendas that may leave certain conditions, therapies, and other facets of health care underrepresented. My belief is that experts should therefore be trained and incentivized to be spokespeople for their own areas of expertise. Furthermore, social media provides a novel opportunity to improve health literacy while humanizing and restoring fading trust in health care.

There are several items to consider before initiating on one’s social media journey: whether you are committed to exploring the space, what one’s purpose is on social media, who the intended target audience is, which platform is most appropriate to serve that purpose and audience, and what potential pitfalls there may be.

The first question to ask oneself is whether you are prepared to devote time to cultivating a social media presence and speak or be heard publicly. Regardless of the platform, a social media presence requires consistency and audience interaction. The decision to partake can be personal; I view social media as an extension of in-person interaction, but not everyone is willing to commit to increased accessibility and visibility. Social media can still be valuable to those who choose to observe and learn rather than post.

Next is what one’s purpose is with being on social media. This can vary from peer education, boosting health literacy for patients, or using social media as a news source, networking tool, or a creative outlet. While my social media activity supports all these, my primary purpose is the distribution of accurate health information as a trained expert. When I started, I was one of few academic gastroenterologists uniquely positioned to bridge the elusive gap between the young, Gen Z crowd and academic medicine. Of similar importance is defining one’s target audience: patients, trainees, colleagues, or the general public.

Because there are numerous social media platforms, and only more to come in the future, it is critical to focus only on platforms that will serve one’s purpose and audience. Additionally, some may find more joy or agility in using one platform over the other. While I am one of the few clinicians who are adept at building communities across multiple rapidly evolving social media platforms, I will be the first to admit that it takes time to fully understand each platform with its ever-growing array of features. I find myself better at some platforms over others and, depending on my goals, I often will shift my focus from one to another.

Dr. Chiang is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology & hepatology, director, endoscopic bariatric program, chief medical social media officer, Jefferson Health, Philadelphia, and president, Association for Healthcare Social Media, @austinchiangmd

I have always been a strong believer in meeting patients where they obtain their health information. Early in my clinical training, I realized that patients are exposed to health information through traditional media formats and, increasingly, social media, rather than brief clinical encounters. Unlike traditional media, social media allows individuals the opportunity to post information without a third-party filter. However, this opens the door for untrained individuals to spread misinformation and disinformation. In health care, this could potentially disrupt public health efforts. Even innocent mistakes like overlooking the appropriate clinical context can cause issues. Traditional media outlets also have agendas that may leave certain conditions, therapies, and other facets of health care underrepresented. My belief is that experts should therefore be trained and incentivized to be spokespeople for their own areas of expertise. Furthermore, social media provides a novel opportunity to improve health literacy while humanizing and restoring fading trust in health care.

There are several items to consider before initiating on one’s social media journey: whether you are committed to exploring the space, what one’s purpose is on social media, who the intended target audience is, which platform is most appropriate to serve that purpose and audience, and what potential pitfalls there may be.

The first question to ask oneself is whether you are prepared to devote time to cultivating a social media presence and speak or be heard publicly. Regardless of the platform, a social media presence requires consistency and audience interaction. The decision to partake can be personal; I view social media as an extension of in-person interaction, but not everyone is willing to commit to increased accessibility and visibility. Social media can still be valuable to those who choose to observe and learn rather than post.

Next is what one’s purpose is with being on social media. This can vary from peer education, boosting health literacy for patients, or using social media as a news source, networking tool, or a creative outlet. While my social media activity supports all these, my primary purpose is the distribution of accurate health information as a trained expert. When I started, I was one of few academic gastroenterologists uniquely positioned to bridge the elusive gap between the young, Gen Z crowd and academic medicine. Of similar importance is defining one’s target audience: patients, trainees, colleagues, or the general public.

Because there are numerous social media platforms, and only more to come in the future, it is critical to focus only on platforms that will serve one’s purpose and audience. Additionally, some may find more joy or agility in using one platform over the other. While I am one of the few clinicians who are adept at building communities across multiple rapidly evolving social media platforms, I will be the first to admit that it takes time to fully understand each platform with its ever-growing array of features. I find myself better at some platforms over others and, depending on my goals, I often will shift my focus from one to another.

Dr. Chiang is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology & hepatology, director, endoscopic bariatric program, chief medical social media officer, Jefferson Health, Philadelphia, and president, Association for Healthcare Social Media, @austinchiangmd

I have always been a strong believer in meeting patients where they obtain their health information. Early in my clinical training, I realized that patients are exposed to health information through traditional media formats and, increasingly, social media, rather than brief clinical encounters. Unlike traditional media, social media allows individuals the opportunity to post information without a third-party filter. However, this opens the door for untrained individuals to spread misinformation and disinformation. In health care, this could potentially disrupt public health efforts. Even innocent mistakes like overlooking the appropriate clinical context can cause issues. Traditional media outlets also have agendas that may leave certain conditions, therapies, and other facets of health care underrepresented. My belief is that experts should therefore be trained and incentivized to be spokespeople for their own areas of expertise. Furthermore, social media provides a novel opportunity to improve health literacy while humanizing and restoring fading trust in health care.

There are several items to consider before initiating on one’s social media journey: whether you are committed to exploring the space, what one’s purpose is on social media, who the intended target audience is, which platform is most appropriate to serve that purpose and audience, and what potential pitfalls there may be.

The first question to ask oneself is whether you are prepared to devote time to cultivating a social media presence and speak or be heard publicly. Regardless of the platform, a social media presence requires consistency and audience interaction. The decision to partake can be personal; I view social media as an extension of in-person interaction, but not everyone is willing to commit to increased accessibility and visibility. Social media can still be valuable to those who choose to observe and learn rather than post.

Next is what one’s purpose is with being on social media. This can vary from peer education, boosting health literacy for patients, or using social media as a news source, networking tool, or a creative outlet. While my social media activity supports all these, my primary purpose is the distribution of accurate health information as a trained expert. When I started, I was one of few academic gastroenterologists uniquely positioned to bridge the elusive gap between the young, Gen Z crowd and academic medicine. Of similar importance is defining one’s target audience: patients, trainees, colleagues, or the general public.

Because there are numerous social media platforms, and only more to come in the future, it is critical to focus only on platforms that will serve one’s purpose and audience. Additionally, some may find more joy or agility in using one platform over the other. While I am one of the few clinicians who are adept at building communities across multiple rapidly evolving social media platforms, I will be the first to admit that it takes time to fully understand each platform with its ever-growing array of features. I find myself better at some platforms over others and, depending on my goals, I often will shift my focus from one to another.

Dr. Chiang is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology & hepatology, director, endoscopic bariatric program, chief medical social media officer, Jefferson Health, Philadelphia, and president, Association for Healthcare Social Media, @austinchiangmd

Incorporating skin toxicity protocols at a cancer center significantly increased the rate of prophylactic treatment for rashes resulting from cancer therapies, and lowered the risk of interrupting or changing the dose of cancer treatment, according to the results of a retrospective study of 208 adults treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, or affiliated sites.

The benefits of prophylactic treatment for treatment-related skin rash in cancer patients are well established, based largely on the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab (STEPP) trial published in 2012, which led to the development of guidelines for preventing and managing skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) treatment, wrote Zizi Yu of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors. However, they added, “awareness of and adherence to these guidelines among oncology clinicians are thus far poorly understood.” They pointed out that 90% of patients treated with an EGFRi develop cutaneous toxicities, which can affect quality of life, increase the risk of infection, and require dose modification, interruption, or discontinuation of treatment.

In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers compared adherence to protocols at Dana-Farber before and after the 2014-2015 initiation of a Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies (STAT) program at Dana-Farber established in 2014 by the department of dermatology.

The study population included 208 adult cancer patients with colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, or cutaneous squamous cell cancer, treated with at least one dose of cetuximab (Erbitux); the average age of the patients was 62 years and the majority were men. Most had stage IV disease. The STAT program included the integration of 9 oncodermatologists in the head and neck, genitourinary, and cutaneous oncology clinics for 7 of 10 cancer treatment sessions per week, as well as the creation of urgent access time slots in oncodermatology clinics for 10 of 10 sessions per week.

Overall, significantly more patients were treated prophylactically for skin toxicity at the start of cetuximab treatment in 2017 vs. 2012 (47% vs. 25%, P less than .001) after the initiation of a dermatology protocol.

In addition, the preemptive use of tetracycline increased significantly from 45% to 71% (P = .02) between the two time periods, as did the use of topical corticosteroids (from 7% to 57%, P less than .001), while the use of topical antibiotics decreased from 79% to 43% (P = .02). Rates of dose changes or interruptions were significantly lower among those on prophylaxis (5% vs. 19%, P =.01), a 79% lower risk. Patients treated prophylactically were 94% less likely to need a first rescue treatment and 74% less likely to need a second rescue treatment for rash.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single institution, and incomplete documentation of some patients, the researchers noted. However, the results “highlight the value of integrating dermatologic care and education into oncology centers by increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for rash and appropriate treatment agent selection, which may minimize toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions and improve quality of life,” they concluded.

“As novel cancer treatment options for patients continue to develop, and as patients with cancer live longer, the spectrum and prevalence of dermatologic toxic effects will continue to expand,” Bernice Y. Kwong, MD, director of the supportive dermato-oncology program at Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE: Yu Z et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 July 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1795. Kwong BY. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1794.

Incorporating skin toxicity protocols at a cancer center significantly increased the rate of prophylactic treatment for rashes resulting from cancer therapies, and lowered the risk of interrupting or changing the dose of cancer treatment, according to the results of a retrospective study of 208 adults treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, or affiliated sites.

The benefits of prophylactic treatment for treatment-related skin rash in cancer patients are well established, based largely on the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab (STEPP) trial published in 2012, which led to the development of guidelines for preventing and managing skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) treatment, wrote Zizi Yu of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors. However, they added, “awareness of and adherence to these guidelines among oncology clinicians are thus far poorly understood.” They pointed out that 90% of patients treated with an EGFRi develop cutaneous toxicities, which can affect quality of life, increase the risk of infection, and require dose modification, interruption, or discontinuation of treatment.

In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers compared adherence to protocols at Dana-Farber before and after the 2014-2015 initiation of a Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies (STAT) program at Dana-Farber established in 2014 by the department of dermatology.

The study population included 208 adult cancer patients with colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, or cutaneous squamous cell cancer, treated with at least one dose of cetuximab (Erbitux); the average age of the patients was 62 years and the majority were men. Most had stage IV disease. The STAT program included the integration of 9 oncodermatologists in the head and neck, genitourinary, and cutaneous oncology clinics for 7 of 10 cancer treatment sessions per week, as well as the creation of urgent access time slots in oncodermatology clinics for 10 of 10 sessions per week.

Overall, significantly more patients were treated prophylactically for skin toxicity at the start of cetuximab treatment in 2017 vs. 2012 (47% vs. 25%, P less than .001) after the initiation of a dermatology protocol.

In addition, the preemptive use of tetracycline increased significantly from 45% to 71% (P = .02) between the two time periods, as did the use of topical corticosteroids (from 7% to 57%, P less than .001), while the use of topical antibiotics decreased from 79% to 43% (P = .02). Rates of dose changes or interruptions were significantly lower among those on prophylaxis (5% vs. 19%, P =.01), a 79% lower risk. Patients treated prophylactically were 94% less likely to need a first rescue treatment and 74% less likely to need a second rescue treatment for rash.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single institution, and incomplete documentation of some patients, the researchers noted. However, the results “highlight the value of integrating dermatologic care and education into oncology centers by increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for rash and appropriate treatment agent selection, which may minimize toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions and improve quality of life,” they concluded.

“As novel cancer treatment options for patients continue to develop, and as patients with cancer live longer, the spectrum and prevalence of dermatologic toxic effects will continue to expand,” Bernice Y. Kwong, MD, director of the supportive dermato-oncology program at Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE: Yu Z et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 July 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1795. Kwong BY. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1794.

Incorporating skin toxicity protocols at a cancer center significantly increased the rate of prophylactic treatment for rashes resulting from cancer therapies, and lowered the risk of interrupting or changing the dose of cancer treatment, according to the results of a retrospective study of 208 adults treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, or affiliated sites.

The benefits of prophylactic treatment for treatment-related skin rash in cancer patients are well established, based largely on the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab (STEPP) trial published in 2012, which led to the development of guidelines for preventing and managing skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) treatment, wrote Zizi Yu of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors. However, they added, “awareness of and adherence to these guidelines among oncology clinicians are thus far poorly understood.” They pointed out that 90% of patients treated with an EGFRi develop cutaneous toxicities, which can affect quality of life, increase the risk of infection, and require dose modification, interruption, or discontinuation of treatment.

In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers compared adherence to protocols at Dana-Farber before and after the 2014-2015 initiation of a Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies (STAT) program at Dana-Farber established in 2014 by the department of dermatology.

The study population included 208 adult cancer patients with colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, or cutaneous squamous cell cancer, treated with at least one dose of cetuximab (Erbitux); the average age of the patients was 62 years and the majority were men. Most had stage IV disease. The STAT program included the integration of 9 oncodermatologists in the head and neck, genitourinary, and cutaneous oncology clinics for 7 of 10 cancer treatment sessions per week, as well as the creation of urgent access time slots in oncodermatology clinics for 10 of 10 sessions per week.

Overall, significantly more patients were treated prophylactically for skin toxicity at the start of cetuximab treatment in 2017 vs. 2012 (47% vs. 25%, P less than .001) after the initiation of a dermatology protocol.

In addition, the preemptive use of tetracycline increased significantly from 45% to 71% (P = .02) between the two time periods, as did the use of topical corticosteroids (from 7% to 57%, P less than .001), while the use of topical antibiotics decreased from 79% to 43% (P = .02). Rates of dose changes or interruptions were significantly lower among those on prophylaxis (5% vs. 19%, P =.01), a 79% lower risk. Patients treated prophylactically were 94% less likely to need a first rescue treatment and 74% less likely to need a second rescue treatment for rash.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single institution, and incomplete documentation of some patients, the researchers noted. However, the results “highlight the value of integrating dermatologic care and education into oncology centers by increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for rash and appropriate treatment agent selection, which may minimize toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions and improve quality of life,” they concluded.

“As novel cancer treatment options for patients continue to develop, and as patients with cancer live longer, the spectrum and prevalence of dermatologic toxic effects will continue to expand,” Bernice Y. Kwong, MD, director of the supportive dermato-oncology program at Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE: Yu Z et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 July 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1795. Kwong BY. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1794.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

The Society of Hospital Medicine officially welcomed Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, as chief executive officer on July 1, 2020. Dr. Howell reports to the Society of Hospital Medicine board of directors and is tasked with ensuring that SHM continues to serve the evolving needs and interests of its members while overseeing the organization’s strategic direction.

“The SHM board of directors is excited to work with Dr. Howell to navigate the future of SHM and of the hospital medicine specialty,” said Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM, SHM president and chair of the CEO Search Committee. “With his extensive knowledge of the health care landscape and of SHM, Dr. Howell embodies the society’s dedication to empowering hospitalists to be positive change agents in their institutions and in the health care system as a whole.”

Prior to his current role, Dr. Howell served as chief operating officer of SHM for 2 years; in that role, he led senior management’s planning and defined organizational goals to drive growth. As the senior physician adviser to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement for 5 years, he consulted for the society’s arm that conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. In addition to being a past president of SHM’s board of directors, he is the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies.

“Now more than ever, SHM has an opportunity to superserve hospitalists and the patients they serve, and I couldn’t be more excited to lead the society into its next chapter,” Dr. Howell said. “Supported by a dedicated member base and innovative staff, I am confident that SHM will continue on its successful path forward and will provide its members with the products, services, and tools that hospitalists need to improve patient care and adapt to the constantly evolving environment.”

In addition to serving in various capacities at SHM, Dr. Howell has served as a professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He has held multiple titles within the Johns Hopkins medical institutions, including chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview, section chief of hospital medicine for Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, deputy director of hospital operations for the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, and chief medical officer of operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and oversaw nearly 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals. Along with his role as SHM CEO, he will remain a member of the adjunct faculty at Johns Hopkins University.

More recently, Dr. Howell served as chief medical officer for the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital, a fully functional, 250-bed hospital created to care for patients in the Baltimore metropolitan area who were suffering from complications from COVID-19.

Dr. Howell received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, College Park, which has proven instrumental in his mastery of managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput and patient outcomes.

The nationwide search process that led to Dr. Howell’s appointment was led by a CEO Search Committee, which included members of the SHM board of directors and was assisted by the executive search firm Spencer Stuart.

Dr. Howell succeeds Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, who helped in founding the Society of Hospital Medicine, its first and only CEO since 2000 prior to Dr. Howell’s appointment.

The Society of Hospital Medicine officially welcomed Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, as chief executive officer on July 1, 2020. Dr. Howell reports to the Society of Hospital Medicine board of directors and is tasked with ensuring that SHM continues to serve the evolving needs and interests of its members while overseeing the organization’s strategic direction.

“The SHM board of directors is excited to work with Dr. Howell to navigate the future of SHM and of the hospital medicine specialty,” said Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM, SHM president and chair of the CEO Search Committee. “With his extensive knowledge of the health care landscape and of SHM, Dr. Howell embodies the society’s dedication to empowering hospitalists to be positive change agents in their institutions and in the health care system as a whole.”

Prior to his current role, Dr. Howell served as chief operating officer of SHM for 2 years; in that role, he led senior management’s planning and defined organizational goals to drive growth. As the senior physician adviser to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement for 5 years, he consulted for the society’s arm that conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. In addition to being a past president of SHM’s board of directors, he is the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies.

“Now more than ever, SHM has an opportunity to superserve hospitalists and the patients they serve, and I couldn’t be more excited to lead the society into its next chapter,” Dr. Howell said. “Supported by a dedicated member base and innovative staff, I am confident that SHM will continue on its successful path forward and will provide its members with the products, services, and tools that hospitalists need to improve patient care and adapt to the constantly evolving environment.”

In addition to serving in various capacities at SHM, Dr. Howell has served as a professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He has held multiple titles within the Johns Hopkins medical institutions, including chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview, section chief of hospital medicine for Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, deputy director of hospital operations for the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, and chief medical officer of operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and oversaw nearly 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals. Along with his role as SHM CEO, he will remain a member of the adjunct faculty at Johns Hopkins University.

More recently, Dr. Howell served as chief medical officer for the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital, a fully functional, 250-bed hospital created to care for patients in the Baltimore metropolitan area who were suffering from complications from COVID-19.

Dr. Howell received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, College Park, which has proven instrumental in his mastery of managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput and patient outcomes.

The nationwide search process that led to Dr. Howell’s appointment was led by a CEO Search Committee, which included members of the SHM board of directors and was assisted by the executive search firm Spencer Stuart.

Dr. Howell succeeds Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, who helped in founding the Society of Hospital Medicine, its first and only CEO since 2000 prior to Dr. Howell’s appointment.

The Society of Hospital Medicine officially welcomed Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, as chief executive officer on July 1, 2020. Dr. Howell reports to the Society of Hospital Medicine board of directors and is tasked with ensuring that SHM continues to serve the evolving needs and interests of its members while overseeing the organization’s strategic direction.

“The SHM board of directors is excited to work with Dr. Howell to navigate the future of SHM and of the hospital medicine specialty,” said Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM, SHM president and chair of the CEO Search Committee. “With his extensive knowledge of the health care landscape and of SHM, Dr. Howell embodies the society’s dedication to empowering hospitalists to be positive change agents in their institutions and in the health care system as a whole.”

Prior to his current role, Dr. Howell served as chief operating officer of SHM for 2 years; in that role, he led senior management’s planning and defined organizational goals to drive growth. As the senior physician adviser to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement for 5 years, he consulted for the society’s arm that conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. In addition to being a past president of SHM’s board of directors, he is the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies.

“Now more than ever, SHM has an opportunity to superserve hospitalists and the patients they serve, and I couldn’t be more excited to lead the society into its next chapter,” Dr. Howell said. “Supported by a dedicated member base and innovative staff, I am confident that SHM will continue on its successful path forward and will provide its members with the products, services, and tools that hospitalists need to improve patient care and adapt to the constantly evolving environment.”

In addition to serving in various capacities at SHM, Dr. Howell has served as a professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He has held multiple titles within the Johns Hopkins medical institutions, including chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview, section chief of hospital medicine for Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, deputy director of hospital operations for the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, and chief medical officer of operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and oversaw nearly 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals. Along with his role as SHM CEO, he will remain a member of the adjunct faculty at Johns Hopkins University.

More recently, Dr. Howell served as chief medical officer for the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital, a fully functional, 250-bed hospital created to care for patients in the Baltimore metropolitan area who were suffering from complications from COVID-19.

Dr. Howell received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, College Park, which has proven instrumental in his mastery of managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput and patient outcomes.

The nationwide search process that led to Dr. Howell’s appointment was led by a CEO Search Committee, which included members of the SHM board of directors and was assisted by the executive search firm Spencer Stuart.

Dr. Howell succeeds Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, who helped in founding the Society of Hospital Medicine, its first and only CEO since 2000 prior to Dr. Howell’s appointment.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Migraine is often a deciding factor in pregnancy planning

Migraine can significantly influence a woman’s decision to have children, new research shows.

Results from a multicenter study of more than 600 women showed that, among participants with migraine, those who were younger, had menstrual migraine, or had chronic migraine were more likely to decide to not become pregnant.

“Women who avoided pregnancy due to migraine were most concerned that migraine would make raising a child difficult, that the migraine medications they take would have a negative impact on their child’s development, and that their migraine pattern would worsen during or just after pregnancy,” said study investigator Ryotaro Ishii, MD, PhD, a visiting scientist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Read more.

FDA approves avelumab as maintenance for urothelial carcinoma

The Food and Drug Administration has approved avelumab (Bavencio) as a maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that has not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The new maintenance therapy indication for avelumab is based on efficacy demonstrated in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. Results from this trial were presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The new indication adds to avelumab use in other patient populations, including people with locally advanced or metastatic UC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA also previously approved avelumab for patients who experienced UC progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA first approved marketing of avelumab in 2017. Other uses include treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in combination with axitinib. Read more.

Lifestyle changes may explain skin lesions in pandemic-era patients

Two European prospective case series found no direct association between skin lesions on the hands and feet and SARS-CoV-2 in young people, which raises questions about other contributing factors, such as lockdown conditions, which may be clarified with additional research. The study appeared in JAMA Dermatology.

Meanwhile, data from the American Academy of Dermatology and a recent paper from the British Journal of Dermatology suggest a real association exists, at in least some patients.

“It’s going to be true that most patients with toe lesions are PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-negative because it tends to be a late phenomenon when patients are no longer shedding virus,” explained Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not an author of either study. Read more.

Take-home test strips allow drug users to detect fentanyl

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds.

More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” the study’s lead author and addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, said in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Read more.

New data back use of medical cannabis for epilepsy, pain, anxiety

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, just 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Migraine is often a deciding factor in pregnancy planning

Migraine can significantly influence a woman’s decision to have children, new research shows.

Results from a multicenter study of more than 600 women showed that, among participants with migraine, those who were younger, had menstrual migraine, or had chronic migraine were more likely to decide to not become pregnant.

“Women who avoided pregnancy due to migraine were most concerned that migraine would make raising a child difficult, that the migraine medications they take would have a negative impact on their child’s development, and that their migraine pattern would worsen during or just after pregnancy,” said study investigator Ryotaro Ishii, MD, PhD, a visiting scientist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Read more.

FDA approves avelumab as maintenance for urothelial carcinoma

The Food and Drug Administration has approved avelumab (Bavencio) as a maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that has not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The new maintenance therapy indication for avelumab is based on efficacy demonstrated in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. Results from this trial were presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The new indication adds to avelumab use in other patient populations, including people with locally advanced or metastatic UC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA also previously approved avelumab for patients who experienced UC progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA first approved marketing of avelumab in 2017. Other uses include treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in combination with axitinib. Read more.

Lifestyle changes may explain skin lesions in pandemic-era patients

Two European prospective case series found no direct association between skin lesions on the hands and feet and SARS-CoV-2 in young people, which raises questions about other contributing factors, such as lockdown conditions, which may be clarified with additional research. The study appeared in JAMA Dermatology.

Meanwhile, data from the American Academy of Dermatology and a recent paper from the British Journal of Dermatology suggest a real association exists, at in least some patients.

“It’s going to be true that most patients with toe lesions are PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-negative because it tends to be a late phenomenon when patients are no longer shedding virus,” explained Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not an author of either study. Read more.

Take-home test strips allow drug users to detect fentanyl

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds.

More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” the study’s lead author and addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, said in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Read more.

New data back use of medical cannabis for epilepsy, pain, anxiety

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, just 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Migraine is often a deciding factor in pregnancy planning

Migraine can significantly influence a woman’s decision to have children, new research shows.

Results from a multicenter study of more than 600 women showed that, among participants with migraine, those who were younger, had menstrual migraine, or had chronic migraine were more likely to decide to not become pregnant.

“Women who avoided pregnancy due to migraine were most concerned that migraine would make raising a child difficult, that the migraine medications they take would have a negative impact on their child’s development, and that their migraine pattern would worsen during or just after pregnancy,” said study investigator Ryotaro Ishii, MD, PhD, a visiting scientist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Read more.

FDA approves avelumab as maintenance for urothelial carcinoma

The Food and Drug Administration has approved avelumab (Bavencio) as a maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that has not progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The new maintenance therapy indication for avelumab is based on efficacy demonstrated in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. Results from this trial were presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The new indication adds to avelumab use in other patient populations, including people with locally advanced or metastatic UC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA also previously approved avelumab for patients who experienced UC progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy. The FDA first approved marketing of avelumab in 2017. Other uses include treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in combination with axitinib. Read more.

Lifestyle changes may explain skin lesions in pandemic-era patients

Two European prospective case series found no direct association between skin lesions on the hands and feet and SARS-CoV-2 in young people, which raises questions about other contributing factors, such as lockdown conditions, which may be clarified with additional research. The study appeared in JAMA Dermatology.

Meanwhile, data from the American Academy of Dermatology and a recent paper from the British Journal of Dermatology suggest a real association exists, at in least some patients.

“It’s going to be true that most patients with toe lesions are PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-negative because it tends to be a late phenomenon when patients are no longer shedding virus,” explained Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not an author of either study. Read more.

Take-home test strips allow drug users to detect fentanyl

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds.

More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” the study’s lead author and addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, said in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Read more.

New data back use of medical cannabis for epilepsy, pain, anxiety

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, just 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Background: The transgender population historically has not been identified in population research. Little is known about their health care needs.

Dr. Hoegh is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: The transgender population historically has not been identified in population research. Little is known about their health care needs.

Dr. Hoegh is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: The transgender population historically has not been identified in population research. Little is known about their health care needs.

Dr. Hoegh is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.