User login
For MD-IQ use only
Body dysmorphic disorder diagnosis guidelines completed in Europe
BERLIN – were outlined in a late-breaker presentation at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The development of guidelines for BDD, a disorder familiar to many clinical dermatologists, is intended as a practical tool, according to Maria-Angeliki Gkini, MD, who has appointments at both Bart’s Health NHS Trust in London and the 401 General Army Hospital in Athens.
“BDD is a relatively common disorder in which the patients are preoccupied with a perceived defect or defects,” Dr. Gkini explained. “This affects them so intensely that it affects their mental health and their quality of life.”
In the DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, BDD is specifically defined as a preoccupation with “one or more perceived defects or flaws in physical appearance that are not observable or appear slight to others.” But Dr. Gkini said that BDD can also develop as a comorbidity of dermatological disorders that are visible.
These patients are challenging because they are difficult to please, added Dr. Gkini, who said they commonly become involved in doctor shopping, leaving negative reviews on social media for the clinicians they have cycled through. The problem is that the defects they seek to resolve typically stem from distorted perceptions.
BDD is related to obsessive-compulsive disorder by the frequency with which patients pursue repetitive behaviors related to their preoccupation, such as intensive grooming, frequent trips to the mirror, or difficulty in focusing on topics other than their own appearance.
The process to develop the soon-to-be-published guidelines began with a literature search. Of the approximately 3,200 articles identified on BDD, only 10 involved randomized controlled trials. Moreover, even the quality of these trials was considered “low to very low” by the experts who reviewed them, Dr. Gkini said.
One explanation is that psychodermatology has only recently started to attract more research interest, and better studies are now underway, she noted.
However, because of the dearth of high quality evidence now available, the guideline development relied on a Delphi method to reach consensus based on expert opinion in discussion of the available data.
Consensus reached by 17 experts
Specifically, 17 experts, all of whom were members of the European Society for Dermatology and Psychiatry proceeded to systematically address a series of clinical questions and recommendations. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the participants strongly agreeing or agreeing. Several rounds of discussion were often required.
Among the conclusions, the guidelines support uniform screening for BDD in all patients prior to cosmetic procedures. In identifying depression, anxiety, and distorted perceptions, simple tools, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire might be adequate for an initial evaluation, but Dr. Gkini also recommended routinely inquiring about suicidal ideation, which has been reported in up to 80% of individuals with BDD.
Other instruments for screening that can be considered include DSM-5 criteria for BDD and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology Version, which might be particularly useful and appropriate for dermatologists.
One of the reasons to screen for BDD is that these patients often convince themselves that some specific procedure is needed to resolve the source of their obsession. The goal of screening is to verify that it is the dermatologic concern, not an underlying psychiatric disorder that is driving their search for relief. The risk of dermatologic interventions is not only that expectations are not met, but the patient’s perception of a failed intervention “sometimes makes these worse,” Dr. Gkini explained.
Collaboration with psychiatrists recommended
The guidelines include suggestions for treatment of BDD. Of these, SSRIs are recommended at high relative doses, according to Dr. Gkini. Consistent with the consensus recommendation of collaborating with mental health specialists, she said that the recommendations acknowledge evidence of greater benefits when SSRIs are combined with psychotherapy.
Katharine A. Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has been conducting BDD research for several years and has written numerous books and articles about this topic, including a review in the journal Focus. She cautioned that, because of a normal concern for appearance, BDD is easily missed by dermatologists.
“For BDD to be diagnosed, the preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning,” she said in an interview. “This is necessary to differentiate BDD from more normal and common appearance concerns that do not qualify for the diagnosis”
She specified that patients should be considered for cognitive-behavioral therapy rather than psychotherapy, a generic term that covers many forms of treatment. She said that most other types of psychotherapy “are probably not effective” for BDD.
Dr. Phillips highly endorsed the development of BDD guidelines for dermatologists because of the frequency with which physicians in this specialty encounter BDD – and believes that more attention to this diagnosis is needed.
“I recommend that dermatologists who have a patient with BDD collaborate with a psychiatrist in delivering care with an SSRI,” she said. “High doses of these medications are often needed to effectively treat BDD.”
Dr. Gkini reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO, Novartis, Sanofi, and Regenlab. Dr. Phillips reported no relevant financial relationships.
BERLIN – were outlined in a late-breaker presentation at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The development of guidelines for BDD, a disorder familiar to many clinical dermatologists, is intended as a practical tool, according to Maria-Angeliki Gkini, MD, who has appointments at both Bart’s Health NHS Trust in London and the 401 General Army Hospital in Athens.
“BDD is a relatively common disorder in which the patients are preoccupied with a perceived defect or defects,” Dr. Gkini explained. “This affects them so intensely that it affects their mental health and their quality of life.”
In the DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, BDD is specifically defined as a preoccupation with “one or more perceived defects or flaws in physical appearance that are not observable or appear slight to others.” But Dr. Gkini said that BDD can also develop as a comorbidity of dermatological disorders that are visible.
These patients are challenging because they are difficult to please, added Dr. Gkini, who said they commonly become involved in doctor shopping, leaving negative reviews on social media for the clinicians they have cycled through. The problem is that the defects they seek to resolve typically stem from distorted perceptions.
BDD is related to obsessive-compulsive disorder by the frequency with which patients pursue repetitive behaviors related to their preoccupation, such as intensive grooming, frequent trips to the mirror, or difficulty in focusing on topics other than their own appearance.
The process to develop the soon-to-be-published guidelines began with a literature search. Of the approximately 3,200 articles identified on BDD, only 10 involved randomized controlled trials. Moreover, even the quality of these trials was considered “low to very low” by the experts who reviewed them, Dr. Gkini said.
One explanation is that psychodermatology has only recently started to attract more research interest, and better studies are now underway, she noted.
However, because of the dearth of high quality evidence now available, the guideline development relied on a Delphi method to reach consensus based on expert opinion in discussion of the available data.
Consensus reached by 17 experts
Specifically, 17 experts, all of whom were members of the European Society for Dermatology and Psychiatry proceeded to systematically address a series of clinical questions and recommendations. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the participants strongly agreeing or agreeing. Several rounds of discussion were often required.
Among the conclusions, the guidelines support uniform screening for BDD in all patients prior to cosmetic procedures. In identifying depression, anxiety, and distorted perceptions, simple tools, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire might be adequate for an initial evaluation, but Dr. Gkini also recommended routinely inquiring about suicidal ideation, which has been reported in up to 80% of individuals with BDD.
Other instruments for screening that can be considered include DSM-5 criteria for BDD and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology Version, which might be particularly useful and appropriate for dermatologists.
One of the reasons to screen for BDD is that these patients often convince themselves that some specific procedure is needed to resolve the source of their obsession. The goal of screening is to verify that it is the dermatologic concern, not an underlying psychiatric disorder that is driving their search for relief. The risk of dermatologic interventions is not only that expectations are not met, but the patient’s perception of a failed intervention “sometimes makes these worse,” Dr. Gkini explained.
Collaboration with psychiatrists recommended
The guidelines include suggestions for treatment of BDD. Of these, SSRIs are recommended at high relative doses, according to Dr. Gkini. Consistent with the consensus recommendation of collaborating with mental health specialists, she said that the recommendations acknowledge evidence of greater benefits when SSRIs are combined with psychotherapy.
Katharine A. Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has been conducting BDD research for several years and has written numerous books and articles about this topic, including a review in the journal Focus. She cautioned that, because of a normal concern for appearance, BDD is easily missed by dermatologists.
“For BDD to be diagnosed, the preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning,” she said in an interview. “This is necessary to differentiate BDD from more normal and common appearance concerns that do not qualify for the diagnosis”
She specified that patients should be considered for cognitive-behavioral therapy rather than psychotherapy, a generic term that covers many forms of treatment. She said that most other types of psychotherapy “are probably not effective” for BDD.
Dr. Phillips highly endorsed the development of BDD guidelines for dermatologists because of the frequency with which physicians in this specialty encounter BDD – and believes that more attention to this diagnosis is needed.
“I recommend that dermatologists who have a patient with BDD collaborate with a psychiatrist in delivering care with an SSRI,” she said. “High doses of these medications are often needed to effectively treat BDD.”
Dr. Gkini reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO, Novartis, Sanofi, and Regenlab. Dr. Phillips reported no relevant financial relationships.
BERLIN – were outlined in a late-breaker presentation at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The development of guidelines for BDD, a disorder familiar to many clinical dermatologists, is intended as a practical tool, according to Maria-Angeliki Gkini, MD, who has appointments at both Bart’s Health NHS Trust in London and the 401 General Army Hospital in Athens.
“BDD is a relatively common disorder in which the patients are preoccupied with a perceived defect or defects,” Dr. Gkini explained. “This affects them so intensely that it affects their mental health and their quality of life.”
In the DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, BDD is specifically defined as a preoccupation with “one or more perceived defects or flaws in physical appearance that are not observable or appear slight to others.” But Dr. Gkini said that BDD can also develop as a comorbidity of dermatological disorders that are visible.
These patients are challenging because they are difficult to please, added Dr. Gkini, who said they commonly become involved in doctor shopping, leaving negative reviews on social media for the clinicians they have cycled through. The problem is that the defects they seek to resolve typically stem from distorted perceptions.
BDD is related to obsessive-compulsive disorder by the frequency with which patients pursue repetitive behaviors related to their preoccupation, such as intensive grooming, frequent trips to the mirror, or difficulty in focusing on topics other than their own appearance.
The process to develop the soon-to-be-published guidelines began with a literature search. Of the approximately 3,200 articles identified on BDD, only 10 involved randomized controlled trials. Moreover, even the quality of these trials was considered “low to very low” by the experts who reviewed them, Dr. Gkini said.
One explanation is that psychodermatology has only recently started to attract more research interest, and better studies are now underway, she noted.
However, because of the dearth of high quality evidence now available, the guideline development relied on a Delphi method to reach consensus based on expert opinion in discussion of the available data.
Consensus reached by 17 experts
Specifically, 17 experts, all of whom were members of the European Society for Dermatology and Psychiatry proceeded to systematically address a series of clinical questions and recommendations. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the participants strongly agreeing or agreeing. Several rounds of discussion were often required.
Among the conclusions, the guidelines support uniform screening for BDD in all patients prior to cosmetic procedures. In identifying depression, anxiety, and distorted perceptions, simple tools, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire might be adequate for an initial evaluation, but Dr. Gkini also recommended routinely inquiring about suicidal ideation, which has been reported in up to 80% of individuals with BDD.
Other instruments for screening that can be considered include DSM-5 criteria for BDD and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology Version, which might be particularly useful and appropriate for dermatologists.
One of the reasons to screen for BDD is that these patients often convince themselves that some specific procedure is needed to resolve the source of their obsession. The goal of screening is to verify that it is the dermatologic concern, not an underlying psychiatric disorder that is driving their search for relief. The risk of dermatologic interventions is not only that expectations are not met, but the patient’s perception of a failed intervention “sometimes makes these worse,” Dr. Gkini explained.
Collaboration with psychiatrists recommended
The guidelines include suggestions for treatment of BDD. Of these, SSRIs are recommended at high relative doses, according to Dr. Gkini. Consistent with the consensus recommendation of collaborating with mental health specialists, she said that the recommendations acknowledge evidence of greater benefits when SSRIs are combined with psychotherapy.
Katharine A. Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has been conducting BDD research for several years and has written numerous books and articles about this topic, including a review in the journal Focus. She cautioned that, because of a normal concern for appearance, BDD is easily missed by dermatologists.
“For BDD to be diagnosed, the preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning,” she said in an interview. “This is necessary to differentiate BDD from more normal and common appearance concerns that do not qualify for the diagnosis”
She specified that patients should be considered for cognitive-behavioral therapy rather than psychotherapy, a generic term that covers many forms of treatment. She said that most other types of psychotherapy “are probably not effective” for BDD.
Dr. Phillips highly endorsed the development of BDD guidelines for dermatologists because of the frequency with which physicians in this specialty encounter BDD – and believes that more attention to this diagnosis is needed.
“I recommend that dermatologists who have a patient with BDD collaborate with a psychiatrist in delivering care with an SSRI,” she said. “High doses of these medications are often needed to effectively treat BDD.”
Dr. Gkini reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO, Novartis, Sanofi, and Regenlab. Dr. Phillips reported no relevant financial relationships.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Monitoring Thyrotropin in Veterans With Thyroid Nodules
When thyroid nodules are found clinically or incidentally on imaging, the patient’s thyrotropin level should be measured.1 Ultrasound is the first-line imaging recommended to assess thyroid nodules.1,2 Nodules can then be evaluated by a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy, which provides cytological information to determine whether the nodule is benign or malignant.1,3,4 Most thyroid nodules pose a low risk of malignancy.1
The American Thyroid Association guidelines on thyroid nodule management do not specify any recommendations for follow-up thyrotropin testing in patients who do not have any history that is known to affect thyroid function.1 Therefore, clinicians have to make decisions regarding follow-up testing in these patients without any evidence-based guidelines. There is a lack of data in the literature on whether thyrotropin levels change over time in this patient population. If thyrotropin levels do not become abnormal over time, then patients would not need thyrotropin monitoring or treatment for hypo- or hyperthyroidism.
The aim of this study was to determine whether thyrotropin levels change over time in patients with thyroid nodules and determine whether repeat thyrotropin testing was required after initial testing. The authors hypothesized that thyrotropin values do not change substantially over time in patients with thyroid nodules, except in patients with a history of hot nodules, autoimmune thyroid disease, thyroid or pituitary surgery, radioactive iodine ablation, neck radiation, or use of medications affecting thyroid function. This study may be able to contribute to the clinical guidelines for thyrotropin testing in patients with thyroid nodules so that clinicians can make evidence-based decisions.
METHODS
This retrospective chart review was conducted using the Computerized Patient Record System at the Veterans Affairs Dayton Healthcare System (VADHS) in Ohio. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with ≥ 1 thyroid nodule from January 2010 to December 2016 and had a normal thyrotropin level at the time of diagnosis were included in the study. Patients who were found to have thyroid nodules multiple times were included only once from the time of the initial diagnosis. Patients were excluded if they had a medical history known to affect thyroid function. Exclusion criteria included a history of hot thyroid nodules; autoimmune thyroid disease on imaging or blood work; history of thyroid surgery, including pituitary surgery; history of radioactive iodine treatment; history of neck radiation; use of thyroxine before nodule diagnosis; use of amiodarone, programmed cell death-1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors, or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 inhibitors; or 3 consecutive months of steroid use.
Age at nodule diagnosis, sex, race, thyrotropin values at and after the time of nodule diagnosis, and duration from nodule diagnosis to most recent thyrotropin value were retrospectively collected until 100 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Of note, from 2010 to 2016, the assays used at the VADHS to measure thyrotropin values changed over time, as did the normal reference ranges and the type of sample used for the assays. Normal thyrotropin range at time of diagnosis based on serum or plasma samples and for repeat thyrotropin levels are provided in Table 1, also based on serum or plasma samples. All collected data in the study was de-identified for analysis.
Statistical Analysis
Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who had an abnormal most recent thyrotropin value and those who did not. Mean (SD) of both groups was calculated for continuous variables of age at diagnosis, initial thyrotropin value and most recent thyrotropin value, and time from diagnosis to most recent thyrotropin value. Percentages for both groups were calculated for categorical variables of sex, race, and whether initial and most recent thyrotropin values were based on serum or plasma samples and old or new reference ranges. A 95% CI was determined for the true population rate of patients with an abnormal thyrotropin value at most recent testing. Independent sample t tests were used to compare the continuous variables between the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups. Categorical variables between the 2 groups were compared using χ2 tests. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were completed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27. This study was approved by the Wright State University Institutional Review Board and the VADHS Research and Development Committee.
RESULTS
Of 557 patient charts studied, 100 patients were included; the mean (SD) age at nodule diagnosis was 62.4 (11.1) years, and the mean (SD) initial thyrotropin level at nodule diagnosis was 1.51 (0.87) μIU/mL. The mean (SD) most recent thyrotropin level was 1.60 (1.03) μIU/mL after a mean duration of 5.7 (2.5) years postnodule diagnosis (Table 2).
Six patients (6%; 95% CI, 2.5%-12.7%) who had a normal thyrotropin level at nodule diagnosis developed an abnormal thyrotropin level in a mean (SD) of 6.9 (3.1) years. These 6 patients had a mean age at nodule diagnosis of 69.2 (11.4) years. Five of the 6 were male, and all were White patients. One patient’s thyrotropin level rose from an initial thyrotropin of 3.38 μIU/mL at nodule diagnosis to a high of 7.76 μIU/mL after 8.5 years. This patient was diagnosed with subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment.
Five patients’ thyrotropin levels dropped below normal in a mean 7 years, with levels ranging from 0.25 to 0.52 μIU/mL. Of these patients, 2 became symptomatic from the nodules, experiencing dysphagia or hoarseness, with 1 diagnosed with hyperthyroidism. This patient was treated with methimazole and radioactive iodine ablation 9 years after diagnosis. The other 3 patients who developed low thyrotropin had no nodule symptoms or treatment. Ninety-four patients maintained thyrotropin values in the normal range for a mean (SD) of 5.7 (2.5) years and had a mean (SD) age at nodule diagnosis of 61.9 (11.0) years.
Both thyrotropin groups were compared. For categorical variables, there were no significant differences for sex (
Of note, the VADHS changed the type of blood sample used to generate thyrotropin values from serum to plasma and had 3 different normal reference ranges during the 2010 to 2016 period studied. The thyrotropin values fell into 4 categories: serum sample with normal range 0.4 to 5.5 μIU/mL, serum sample with normal range 0.4 to 4.0 μIU/mL, plasma sample with normal range 0.4 to 4.0 μIU/mL, and plasma sample with normal range 0.6 to 4.8 μIU/mL. There were no significant differences between the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups in sample type for initial or most recent thyrotropin (P = .44 and P = .99, respectively) or in normal range for initial or most recent thyrotropin level (P = .99 and P = .09, respectively).
DISCUSSION
We found no statistically significant change in blood thyrotropin levels over time among patients with thyroid nodules with no history of medical conditions or medications known to affect thyroid hormone levels. Six of 100 patients developed abnormal thyrotropin, but only 2 eventually were treated for thyroid dysfunction: 1 for hypothyroidism and 1 for hyperthyroidism. The other 4 patients who did not receive treatment developed low thyrotropin but had no official diagnosis of hyperthyroidism in their health records, seemingly due to lack of multiple, consistently low thyrotropin values or due to lack of follow-up. Based on these data, monitoring thyrotropin over time may not be necessary in patients without any medical history known to affect thyroid function. The results provide support for the original hypothesis.
Although only thyrotropin values at the time of nodule diagnosis and most recent thyrotropin values were analyzed, thyrotropin trends over time were considered. Some patients did have transient abnormal thyrotropin values; however, a search of the patients’ records showed that these transient abnormalities did not lead to any initiation of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism treatment.
Another consideration is that changes in the sample type processed and in the normal thyrotropin ranges over time could have been confounding variables. However, statistical analyses showed that the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups did not show any significant differences in sample type or reference range for either the initial or most recent thyrotropin values. Hospitals change the laboratory assays they use for clinical tests over time, but these changes likely did not affect the results of this study.
The data from this study showed similar results to previously reported research. This study found that 6% of patients developed abnormal thyrotropin levels over time. A study of 157 patients with nonfunctioning benign thyroid nodules found that 8.3% of patients developed thyroid dysfunction.5 In another follow-up study on patients with thyroid nodules who were otherwise euthyroid, 2 of 118 patients eventually received treatment for hyperthyroidism.6 In the current study, we report that just 1 of 100 included patients had to begin treatment for hyperthyroidism.
The literature also includes research on using thyrotropin and age to predict malignancy in patients with thyroid nodules. One study suggested that a thyrotropin cutoff point of ≥ 2.1 mU/I and an age cutoff point of ≥ 47 years were significantly associated with a diagnosis of malignancy.7 Although the current study did not study malignancy, the results showed that the mean age at nodule diagnosis was higher in patients who had abnormal vs normal most recent thyrotropin levels: 69 vs 62 years, respectively. Future studies could determine whether a certain initial thyrotropin value or age could be used as a cutoff for requiring further thyrotropin monitoring to check for development of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism.
Limitations
This study was limited by its small size of 100 subjects. Most patients had to be excluded to focus on the aim of determining whether thyrotropin monitoring is needed in the specific group of patients without medical history that would be expected to affect thyroid function. Another limitation was that 83% of the patients included in the study were male, which does not reflect the general population. Future studies should include a greater number of patients and aim for a balance of 50% male and 50% female patients.
Additionally, it is important to note that the changing definition of the normal thyrotropin range was a limitation. It is possible that some patients who were considered normal at the time of a particular thyrotropin measurement may have had an abnormal reading if measured at a different time. Another consideration is that the VADHS changed the type of blood sample used to generate thyrotropin values from serum to plasma during the time that analyzed thyrotropin values were measured. This could have led to different thyrotropin values and, therefore, different results of this study compared with if the sample type had stayed the same. However, a previous study showed very similar thyrotropin values generated from serum and plasma samples in 17 patients.8 Therefore, possibly the change in sample type in the current study only minimally affected the results.
CONCLUSIONS
Current American Thyroid Association guidelines do not specify recommendations for follow-up thyrotropin testing in patients with thyroid nodules who do not have a history of conditions or medications known to affect thyroid hormone levels.1 This study suggests that repeat thyrotropin monitoring may not be necessary for this group of patients. Individuals who had an abnormal most recent thyrotropin had an older age at thyroid nodule diagnosis compared with patients who had a normal most recent thyrotropin, so it is possible that thyrotropin monitoring may be recommended for people with nodules who are above a certain age. The results of this study as well as future studies could help create new clinical recommendations for thyrotropin monitoring in patients with thyroid nodules that clinicians can use to make evidence-based clinical decisions. There would also be a decreased financial, physical, and time burden on the patients if guidelines specify that they are not required to get continued blood thyrotropin testing.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Ronald J. Markert, PhD, formerly of Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, for his contributions to the statistical analysis of this research.
1. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016;26(1):1-133. doi:10.1089/thy.2015.0020
2. Chambara N, Liu SYW, Lo X, Ying M. Diagnostic performance evaluation of different TI-RADS using ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis of thyroid nodules: an experience with adjusted settings. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245617. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245617
3. Livhits MJ, Zhu CY, Kuo EJ, et al. Effectiveness of molecular testing techniques for diagnosis of indeterminate thyroid nodules: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(1):70-77. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5935
4. Grani G, Lamartina L, Ascoli V, et al. Reducing the number of unnecessary thyroid biopsies while improving diagnostic accuracy: toward the “right” TIRADS. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(1):95-102. doi:10.1210/jc.2018-01674
5. Memon R, Salgado Nunez Del Prado SR, Lamos EM, et al. Biochemical follow-up of nonfunctioning benign thyroid nodules. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2021;94(2):322-329. doi:10.1111/cen.14303
6. Bajuk Studen K, Gaberscek S, Pirnat E, Zaletel K. Five-year follow-up and clinical outcome in euthyroid patients with thyroid nodules. Radiol Oncol. 2021;55(3):317-322. Published 2021 May 31. doi:10.2478/raon-2021-0025
7. Fernández-Trujillo C, Pérez-Zaballos J, Rodríguez-Pérez CA, et al. TSH level and risk of malignancy in patients with Bethesda category IV thyroid nodules. Horm Cancer. 2020;11(3-4):200-204. doi:10.1007/s12672-020-00384-4
8. Villanger GD, Learner E, Longnecker MP, et al. Effects of sample handling and analytical procedures on thyroid hormone concentrations in pregnant women’s plasma. Epidemiology. 2017;28(3):365-369. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000606
When thyroid nodules are found clinically or incidentally on imaging, the patient’s thyrotropin level should be measured.1 Ultrasound is the first-line imaging recommended to assess thyroid nodules.1,2 Nodules can then be evaluated by a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy, which provides cytological information to determine whether the nodule is benign or malignant.1,3,4 Most thyroid nodules pose a low risk of malignancy.1
The American Thyroid Association guidelines on thyroid nodule management do not specify any recommendations for follow-up thyrotropin testing in patients who do not have any history that is known to affect thyroid function.1 Therefore, clinicians have to make decisions regarding follow-up testing in these patients without any evidence-based guidelines. There is a lack of data in the literature on whether thyrotropin levels change over time in this patient population. If thyrotropin levels do not become abnormal over time, then patients would not need thyrotropin monitoring or treatment for hypo- or hyperthyroidism.
The aim of this study was to determine whether thyrotropin levels change over time in patients with thyroid nodules and determine whether repeat thyrotropin testing was required after initial testing. The authors hypothesized that thyrotropin values do not change substantially over time in patients with thyroid nodules, except in patients with a history of hot nodules, autoimmune thyroid disease, thyroid or pituitary surgery, radioactive iodine ablation, neck radiation, or use of medications affecting thyroid function. This study may be able to contribute to the clinical guidelines for thyrotropin testing in patients with thyroid nodules so that clinicians can make evidence-based decisions.
METHODS
This retrospective chart review was conducted using the Computerized Patient Record System at the Veterans Affairs Dayton Healthcare System (VADHS) in Ohio. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with ≥ 1 thyroid nodule from January 2010 to December 2016 and had a normal thyrotropin level at the time of diagnosis were included in the study. Patients who were found to have thyroid nodules multiple times were included only once from the time of the initial diagnosis. Patients were excluded if they had a medical history known to affect thyroid function. Exclusion criteria included a history of hot thyroid nodules; autoimmune thyroid disease on imaging or blood work; history of thyroid surgery, including pituitary surgery; history of radioactive iodine treatment; history of neck radiation; use of thyroxine before nodule diagnosis; use of amiodarone, programmed cell death-1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors, or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 inhibitors; or 3 consecutive months of steroid use.
Age at nodule diagnosis, sex, race, thyrotropin values at and after the time of nodule diagnosis, and duration from nodule diagnosis to most recent thyrotropin value were retrospectively collected until 100 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Of note, from 2010 to 2016, the assays used at the VADHS to measure thyrotropin values changed over time, as did the normal reference ranges and the type of sample used for the assays. Normal thyrotropin range at time of diagnosis based on serum or plasma samples and for repeat thyrotropin levels are provided in Table 1, also based on serum or plasma samples. All collected data in the study was de-identified for analysis.
Statistical Analysis
Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who had an abnormal most recent thyrotropin value and those who did not. Mean (SD) of both groups was calculated for continuous variables of age at diagnosis, initial thyrotropin value and most recent thyrotropin value, and time from diagnosis to most recent thyrotropin value. Percentages for both groups were calculated for categorical variables of sex, race, and whether initial and most recent thyrotropin values were based on serum or plasma samples and old or new reference ranges. A 95% CI was determined for the true population rate of patients with an abnormal thyrotropin value at most recent testing. Independent sample t tests were used to compare the continuous variables between the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups. Categorical variables between the 2 groups were compared using χ2 tests. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were completed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27. This study was approved by the Wright State University Institutional Review Board and the VADHS Research and Development Committee.
RESULTS
Of 557 patient charts studied, 100 patients were included; the mean (SD) age at nodule diagnosis was 62.4 (11.1) years, and the mean (SD) initial thyrotropin level at nodule diagnosis was 1.51 (0.87) μIU/mL. The mean (SD) most recent thyrotropin level was 1.60 (1.03) μIU/mL after a mean duration of 5.7 (2.5) years postnodule diagnosis (Table 2).
Six patients (6%; 95% CI, 2.5%-12.7%) who had a normal thyrotropin level at nodule diagnosis developed an abnormal thyrotropin level in a mean (SD) of 6.9 (3.1) years. These 6 patients had a mean age at nodule diagnosis of 69.2 (11.4) years. Five of the 6 were male, and all were White patients. One patient’s thyrotropin level rose from an initial thyrotropin of 3.38 μIU/mL at nodule diagnosis to a high of 7.76 μIU/mL after 8.5 years. This patient was diagnosed with subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment.
Five patients’ thyrotropin levels dropped below normal in a mean 7 years, with levels ranging from 0.25 to 0.52 μIU/mL. Of these patients, 2 became symptomatic from the nodules, experiencing dysphagia or hoarseness, with 1 diagnosed with hyperthyroidism. This patient was treated with methimazole and radioactive iodine ablation 9 years after diagnosis. The other 3 patients who developed low thyrotropin had no nodule symptoms or treatment. Ninety-four patients maintained thyrotropin values in the normal range for a mean (SD) of 5.7 (2.5) years and had a mean (SD) age at nodule diagnosis of 61.9 (11.0) years.
Both thyrotropin groups were compared. For categorical variables, there were no significant differences for sex (
Of note, the VADHS changed the type of blood sample used to generate thyrotropin values from serum to plasma and had 3 different normal reference ranges during the 2010 to 2016 period studied. The thyrotropin values fell into 4 categories: serum sample with normal range 0.4 to 5.5 μIU/mL, serum sample with normal range 0.4 to 4.0 μIU/mL, plasma sample with normal range 0.4 to 4.0 μIU/mL, and plasma sample with normal range 0.6 to 4.8 μIU/mL. There were no significant differences between the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups in sample type for initial or most recent thyrotropin (P = .44 and P = .99, respectively) or in normal range for initial or most recent thyrotropin level (P = .99 and P = .09, respectively).
DISCUSSION
We found no statistically significant change in blood thyrotropin levels over time among patients with thyroid nodules with no history of medical conditions or medications known to affect thyroid hormone levels. Six of 100 patients developed abnormal thyrotropin, but only 2 eventually were treated for thyroid dysfunction: 1 for hypothyroidism and 1 for hyperthyroidism. The other 4 patients who did not receive treatment developed low thyrotropin but had no official diagnosis of hyperthyroidism in their health records, seemingly due to lack of multiple, consistently low thyrotropin values or due to lack of follow-up. Based on these data, monitoring thyrotropin over time may not be necessary in patients without any medical history known to affect thyroid function. The results provide support for the original hypothesis.
Although only thyrotropin values at the time of nodule diagnosis and most recent thyrotropin values were analyzed, thyrotropin trends over time were considered. Some patients did have transient abnormal thyrotropin values; however, a search of the patients’ records showed that these transient abnormalities did not lead to any initiation of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism treatment.
Another consideration is that changes in the sample type processed and in the normal thyrotropin ranges over time could have been confounding variables. However, statistical analyses showed that the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups did not show any significant differences in sample type or reference range for either the initial or most recent thyrotropin values. Hospitals change the laboratory assays they use for clinical tests over time, but these changes likely did not affect the results of this study.
The data from this study showed similar results to previously reported research. This study found that 6% of patients developed abnormal thyrotropin levels over time. A study of 157 patients with nonfunctioning benign thyroid nodules found that 8.3% of patients developed thyroid dysfunction.5 In another follow-up study on patients with thyroid nodules who were otherwise euthyroid, 2 of 118 patients eventually received treatment for hyperthyroidism.6 In the current study, we report that just 1 of 100 included patients had to begin treatment for hyperthyroidism.
The literature also includes research on using thyrotropin and age to predict malignancy in patients with thyroid nodules. One study suggested that a thyrotropin cutoff point of ≥ 2.1 mU/I and an age cutoff point of ≥ 47 years were significantly associated with a diagnosis of malignancy.7 Although the current study did not study malignancy, the results showed that the mean age at nodule diagnosis was higher in patients who had abnormal vs normal most recent thyrotropin levels: 69 vs 62 years, respectively. Future studies could determine whether a certain initial thyrotropin value or age could be used as a cutoff for requiring further thyrotropin monitoring to check for development of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism.
Limitations
This study was limited by its small size of 100 subjects. Most patients had to be excluded to focus on the aim of determining whether thyrotropin monitoring is needed in the specific group of patients without medical history that would be expected to affect thyroid function. Another limitation was that 83% of the patients included in the study were male, which does not reflect the general population. Future studies should include a greater number of patients and aim for a balance of 50% male and 50% female patients.
Additionally, it is important to note that the changing definition of the normal thyrotropin range was a limitation. It is possible that some patients who were considered normal at the time of a particular thyrotropin measurement may have had an abnormal reading if measured at a different time. Another consideration is that the VADHS changed the type of blood sample used to generate thyrotropin values from serum to plasma during the time that analyzed thyrotropin values were measured. This could have led to different thyrotropin values and, therefore, different results of this study compared with if the sample type had stayed the same. However, a previous study showed very similar thyrotropin values generated from serum and plasma samples in 17 patients.8 Therefore, possibly the change in sample type in the current study only minimally affected the results.
CONCLUSIONS
Current American Thyroid Association guidelines do not specify recommendations for follow-up thyrotropin testing in patients with thyroid nodules who do not have a history of conditions or medications known to affect thyroid hormone levels.1 This study suggests that repeat thyrotropin monitoring may not be necessary for this group of patients. Individuals who had an abnormal most recent thyrotropin had an older age at thyroid nodule diagnosis compared with patients who had a normal most recent thyrotropin, so it is possible that thyrotropin monitoring may be recommended for people with nodules who are above a certain age. The results of this study as well as future studies could help create new clinical recommendations for thyrotropin monitoring in patients with thyroid nodules that clinicians can use to make evidence-based clinical decisions. There would also be a decreased financial, physical, and time burden on the patients if guidelines specify that they are not required to get continued blood thyrotropin testing.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Ronald J. Markert, PhD, formerly of Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, for his contributions to the statistical analysis of this research.
When thyroid nodules are found clinically or incidentally on imaging, the patient’s thyrotropin level should be measured.1 Ultrasound is the first-line imaging recommended to assess thyroid nodules.1,2 Nodules can then be evaluated by a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy, which provides cytological information to determine whether the nodule is benign or malignant.1,3,4 Most thyroid nodules pose a low risk of malignancy.1
The American Thyroid Association guidelines on thyroid nodule management do not specify any recommendations for follow-up thyrotropin testing in patients who do not have any history that is known to affect thyroid function.1 Therefore, clinicians have to make decisions regarding follow-up testing in these patients without any evidence-based guidelines. There is a lack of data in the literature on whether thyrotropin levels change over time in this patient population. If thyrotropin levels do not become abnormal over time, then patients would not need thyrotropin monitoring or treatment for hypo- or hyperthyroidism.
The aim of this study was to determine whether thyrotropin levels change over time in patients with thyroid nodules and determine whether repeat thyrotropin testing was required after initial testing. The authors hypothesized that thyrotropin values do not change substantially over time in patients with thyroid nodules, except in patients with a history of hot nodules, autoimmune thyroid disease, thyroid or pituitary surgery, radioactive iodine ablation, neck radiation, or use of medications affecting thyroid function. This study may be able to contribute to the clinical guidelines for thyrotropin testing in patients with thyroid nodules so that clinicians can make evidence-based decisions.
METHODS
This retrospective chart review was conducted using the Computerized Patient Record System at the Veterans Affairs Dayton Healthcare System (VADHS) in Ohio. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with ≥ 1 thyroid nodule from January 2010 to December 2016 and had a normal thyrotropin level at the time of diagnosis were included in the study. Patients who were found to have thyroid nodules multiple times were included only once from the time of the initial diagnosis. Patients were excluded if they had a medical history known to affect thyroid function. Exclusion criteria included a history of hot thyroid nodules; autoimmune thyroid disease on imaging or blood work; history of thyroid surgery, including pituitary surgery; history of radioactive iodine treatment; history of neck radiation; use of thyroxine before nodule diagnosis; use of amiodarone, programmed cell death-1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors, or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 inhibitors; or 3 consecutive months of steroid use.
Age at nodule diagnosis, sex, race, thyrotropin values at and after the time of nodule diagnosis, and duration from nodule diagnosis to most recent thyrotropin value were retrospectively collected until 100 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Of note, from 2010 to 2016, the assays used at the VADHS to measure thyrotropin values changed over time, as did the normal reference ranges and the type of sample used for the assays. Normal thyrotropin range at time of diagnosis based on serum or plasma samples and for repeat thyrotropin levels are provided in Table 1, also based on serum or plasma samples. All collected data in the study was de-identified for analysis.
Statistical Analysis
Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who had an abnormal most recent thyrotropin value and those who did not. Mean (SD) of both groups was calculated for continuous variables of age at diagnosis, initial thyrotropin value and most recent thyrotropin value, and time from diagnosis to most recent thyrotropin value. Percentages for both groups were calculated for categorical variables of sex, race, and whether initial and most recent thyrotropin values were based on serum or plasma samples and old or new reference ranges. A 95% CI was determined for the true population rate of patients with an abnormal thyrotropin value at most recent testing. Independent sample t tests were used to compare the continuous variables between the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups. Categorical variables between the 2 groups were compared using χ2 tests. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were completed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27. This study was approved by the Wright State University Institutional Review Board and the VADHS Research and Development Committee.
RESULTS
Of 557 patient charts studied, 100 patients were included; the mean (SD) age at nodule diagnosis was 62.4 (11.1) years, and the mean (SD) initial thyrotropin level at nodule diagnosis was 1.51 (0.87) μIU/mL. The mean (SD) most recent thyrotropin level was 1.60 (1.03) μIU/mL after a mean duration of 5.7 (2.5) years postnodule diagnosis (Table 2).
Six patients (6%; 95% CI, 2.5%-12.7%) who had a normal thyrotropin level at nodule diagnosis developed an abnormal thyrotropin level in a mean (SD) of 6.9 (3.1) years. These 6 patients had a mean age at nodule diagnosis of 69.2 (11.4) years. Five of the 6 were male, and all were White patients. One patient’s thyrotropin level rose from an initial thyrotropin of 3.38 μIU/mL at nodule diagnosis to a high of 7.76 μIU/mL after 8.5 years. This patient was diagnosed with subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment.
Five patients’ thyrotropin levels dropped below normal in a mean 7 years, with levels ranging from 0.25 to 0.52 μIU/mL. Of these patients, 2 became symptomatic from the nodules, experiencing dysphagia or hoarseness, with 1 diagnosed with hyperthyroidism. This patient was treated with methimazole and radioactive iodine ablation 9 years after diagnosis. The other 3 patients who developed low thyrotropin had no nodule symptoms or treatment. Ninety-four patients maintained thyrotropin values in the normal range for a mean (SD) of 5.7 (2.5) years and had a mean (SD) age at nodule diagnosis of 61.9 (11.0) years.
Both thyrotropin groups were compared. For categorical variables, there were no significant differences for sex (
Of note, the VADHS changed the type of blood sample used to generate thyrotropin values from serum to plasma and had 3 different normal reference ranges during the 2010 to 2016 period studied. The thyrotropin values fell into 4 categories: serum sample with normal range 0.4 to 5.5 μIU/mL, serum sample with normal range 0.4 to 4.0 μIU/mL, plasma sample with normal range 0.4 to 4.0 μIU/mL, and plasma sample with normal range 0.6 to 4.8 μIU/mL. There were no significant differences between the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups in sample type for initial or most recent thyrotropin (P = .44 and P = .99, respectively) or in normal range for initial or most recent thyrotropin level (P = .99 and P = .09, respectively).
DISCUSSION
We found no statistically significant change in blood thyrotropin levels over time among patients with thyroid nodules with no history of medical conditions or medications known to affect thyroid hormone levels. Six of 100 patients developed abnormal thyrotropin, but only 2 eventually were treated for thyroid dysfunction: 1 for hypothyroidism and 1 for hyperthyroidism. The other 4 patients who did not receive treatment developed low thyrotropin but had no official diagnosis of hyperthyroidism in their health records, seemingly due to lack of multiple, consistently low thyrotropin values or due to lack of follow-up. Based on these data, monitoring thyrotropin over time may not be necessary in patients without any medical history known to affect thyroid function. The results provide support for the original hypothesis.
Although only thyrotropin values at the time of nodule diagnosis and most recent thyrotropin values were analyzed, thyrotropin trends over time were considered. Some patients did have transient abnormal thyrotropin values; however, a search of the patients’ records showed that these transient abnormalities did not lead to any initiation of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism treatment.
Another consideration is that changes in the sample type processed and in the normal thyrotropin ranges over time could have been confounding variables. However, statistical analyses showed that the abnormal and normal most recent thyrotropin groups did not show any significant differences in sample type or reference range for either the initial or most recent thyrotropin values. Hospitals change the laboratory assays they use for clinical tests over time, but these changes likely did not affect the results of this study.
The data from this study showed similar results to previously reported research. This study found that 6% of patients developed abnormal thyrotropin levels over time. A study of 157 patients with nonfunctioning benign thyroid nodules found that 8.3% of patients developed thyroid dysfunction.5 In another follow-up study on patients with thyroid nodules who were otherwise euthyroid, 2 of 118 patients eventually received treatment for hyperthyroidism.6 In the current study, we report that just 1 of 100 included patients had to begin treatment for hyperthyroidism.
The literature also includes research on using thyrotropin and age to predict malignancy in patients with thyroid nodules. One study suggested that a thyrotropin cutoff point of ≥ 2.1 mU/I and an age cutoff point of ≥ 47 years were significantly associated with a diagnosis of malignancy.7 Although the current study did not study malignancy, the results showed that the mean age at nodule diagnosis was higher in patients who had abnormal vs normal most recent thyrotropin levels: 69 vs 62 years, respectively. Future studies could determine whether a certain initial thyrotropin value or age could be used as a cutoff for requiring further thyrotropin monitoring to check for development of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism.
Limitations
This study was limited by its small size of 100 subjects. Most patients had to be excluded to focus on the aim of determining whether thyrotropin monitoring is needed in the specific group of patients without medical history that would be expected to affect thyroid function. Another limitation was that 83% of the patients included in the study were male, which does not reflect the general population. Future studies should include a greater number of patients and aim for a balance of 50% male and 50% female patients.
Additionally, it is important to note that the changing definition of the normal thyrotropin range was a limitation. It is possible that some patients who were considered normal at the time of a particular thyrotropin measurement may have had an abnormal reading if measured at a different time. Another consideration is that the VADHS changed the type of blood sample used to generate thyrotropin values from serum to plasma during the time that analyzed thyrotropin values were measured. This could have led to different thyrotropin values and, therefore, different results of this study compared with if the sample type had stayed the same. However, a previous study showed very similar thyrotropin values generated from serum and plasma samples in 17 patients.8 Therefore, possibly the change in sample type in the current study only minimally affected the results.
CONCLUSIONS
Current American Thyroid Association guidelines do not specify recommendations for follow-up thyrotropin testing in patients with thyroid nodules who do not have a history of conditions or medications known to affect thyroid hormone levels.1 This study suggests that repeat thyrotropin monitoring may not be necessary for this group of patients. Individuals who had an abnormal most recent thyrotropin had an older age at thyroid nodule diagnosis compared with patients who had a normal most recent thyrotropin, so it is possible that thyrotropin monitoring may be recommended for people with nodules who are above a certain age. The results of this study as well as future studies could help create new clinical recommendations for thyrotropin monitoring in patients with thyroid nodules that clinicians can use to make evidence-based clinical decisions. There would also be a decreased financial, physical, and time burden on the patients if guidelines specify that they are not required to get continued blood thyrotropin testing.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Ronald J. Markert, PhD, formerly of Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, for his contributions to the statistical analysis of this research.
1. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016;26(1):1-133. doi:10.1089/thy.2015.0020
2. Chambara N, Liu SYW, Lo X, Ying M. Diagnostic performance evaluation of different TI-RADS using ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis of thyroid nodules: an experience with adjusted settings. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245617. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245617
3. Livhits MJ, Zhu CY, Kuo EJ, et al. Effectiveness of molecular testing techniques for diagnosis of indeterminate thyroid nodules: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(1):70-77. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5935
4. Grani G, Lamartina L, Ascoli V, et al. Reducing the number of unnecessary thyroid biopsies while improving diagnostic accuracy: toward the “right” TIRADS. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(1):95-102. doi:10.1210/jc.2018-01674
5. Memon R, Salgado Nunez Del Prado SR, Lamos EM, et al. Biochemical follow-up of nonfunctioning benign thyroid nodules. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2021;94(2):322-329. doi:10.1111/cen.14303
6. Bajuk Studen K, Gaberscek S, Pirnat E, Zaletel K. Five-year follow-up and clinical outcome in euthyroid patients with thyroid nodules. Radiol Oncol. 2021;55(3):317-322. Published 2021 May 31. doi:10.2478/raon-2021-0025
7. Fernández-Trujillo C, Pérez-Zaballos J, Rodríguez-Pérez CA, et al. TSH level and risk of malignancy in patients with Bethesda category IV thyroid nodules. Horm Cancer. 2020;11(3-4):200-204. doi:10.1007/s12672-020-00384-4
8. Villanger GD, Learner E, Longnecker MP, et al. Effects of sample handling and analytical procedures on thyroid hormone concentrations in pregnant women’s plasma. Epidemiology. 2017;28(3):365-369. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000606
1. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016;26(1):1-133. doi:10.1089/thy.2015.0020
2. Chambara N, Liu SYW, Lo X, Ying M. Diagnostic performance evaluation of different TI-RADS using ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis of thyroid nodules: an experience with adjusted settings. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245617. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245617
3. Livhits MJ, Zhu CY, Kuo EJ, et al. Effectiveness of molecular testing techniques for diagnosis of indeterminate thyroid nodules: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(1):70-77. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5935
4. Grani G, Lamartina L, Ascoli V, et al. Reducing the number of unnecessary thyroid biopsies while improving diagnostic accuracy: toward the “right” TIRADS. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(1):95-102. doi:10.1210/jc.2018-01674
5. Memon R, Salgado Nunez Del Prado SR, Lamos EM, et al. Biochemical follow-up of nonfunctioning benign thyroid nodules. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2021;94(2):322-329. doi:10.1111/cen.14303
6. Bajuk Studen K, Gaberscek S, Pirnat E, Zaletel K. Five-year follow-up and clinical outcome in euthyroid patients with thyroid nodules. Radiol Oncol. 2021;55(3):317-322. Published 2021 May 31. doi:10.2478/raon-2021-0025
7. Fernández-Trujillo C, Pérez-Zaballos J, Rodríguez-Pérez CA, et al. TSH level and risk of malignancy in patients with Bethesda category IV thyroid nodules. Horm Cancer. 2020;11(3-4):200-204. doi:10.1007/s12672-020-00384-4
8. Villanger GD, Learner E, Longnecker MP, et al. Effects of sample handling and analytical procedures on thyroid hormone concentrations in pregnant women’s plasma. Epidemiology. 2017;28(3):365-369. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000606
Piperacillin-tazobactam poses no renal risk in adults with sepsis
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.
The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.
Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).
The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
TAKEAWAY:
The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).
The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).
Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
IN PRACTICE:
In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.
Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
DISCLOSURES:
The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.
The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.
Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).
The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
TAKEAWAY:
The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).
The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).
Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
IN PRACTICE:
In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.
Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
DISCLOSURES:
The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.
The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.
Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).
The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
TAKEAWAY:
The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).
The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).
Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
IN PRACTICE:
In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.
Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
DISCLOSURES:
The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One-year anniversary
Dear Friends,
It’s been a year since I have become editor-in-chief of The New Gastroenterologist and I am so grateful for our readers and contributors. Thank you for being a part of the TNG family. , including the increasing armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease treatments, taking on leadership roles in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and tackling financial planning.
In this issue’s In Focus, Drs. Ariela K. Holmer, Shannon Chang, and Lisa Malter break down the factors that contribute to selecting therapies for moderate to severe IBD, such as disease activity and severity, extraintestinal manifestations, safety, prior anti–tumor necrosis factor exposure, perianal disease, and patient preference.
Drs. Michael G. Rubeiz, Kemmian D. Johnson, and Juan Reyes Genere continue our journey with IBD in the Short Clinical Review section, describing advances in endoscopic therapies in IBD. They review the resection of colitis dysplasia and management of luminal strictures with dilation and stricturotomy.
Early-career faculty are being requested to spearhead diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts at their institutions or for their groups. Drs. Cassandra D.L. Fritz and Nicolette Juliana Rodriguez highlight important aspects that should be considered prior to taking on DEI roles.
In the Finance section, Dr. Animesh Jain answers five common questions for young gastroenterologists. He addresses student loans, disability insurance, life insurance, retirement, and buying a first house.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first biologic therapy for IBD, infliximab, was only approved 25 years ago in 1998.
Yours truly,
Judy A Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
It’s been a year since I have become editor-in-chief of The New Gastroenterologist and I am so grateful for our readers and contributors. Thank you for being a part of the TNG family. , including the increasing armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease treatments, taking on leadership roles in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and tackling financial planning.
In this issue’s In Focus, Drs. Ariela K. Holmer, Shannon Chang, and Lisa Malter break down the factors that contribute to selecting therapies for moderate to severe IBD, such as disease activity and severity, extraintestinal manifestations, safety, prior anti–tumor necrosis factor exposure, perianal disease, and patient preference.
Drs. Michael G. Rubeiz, Kemmian D. Johnson, and Juan Reyes Genere continue our journey with IBD in the Short Clinical Review section, describing advances in endoscopic therapies in IBD. They review the resection of colitis dysplasia and management of luminal strictures with dilation and stricturotomy.
Early-career faculty are being requested to spearhead diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts at their institutions or for their groups. Drs. Cassandra D.L. Fritz and Nicolette Juliana Rodriguez highlight important aspects that should be considered prior to taking on DEI roles.
In the Finance section, Dr. Animesh Jain answers five common questions for young gastroenterologists. He addresses student loans, disability insurance, life insurance, retirement, and buying a first house.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first biologic therapy for IBD, infliximab, was only approved 25 years ago in 1998.
Yours truly,
Judy A Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
It’s been a year since I have become editor-in-chief of The New Gastroenterologist and I am so grateful for our readers and contributors. Thank you for being a part of the TNG family. , including the increasing armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease treatments, taking on leadership roles in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and tackling financial planning.
In this issue’s In Focus, Drs. Ariela K. Holmer, Shannon Chang, and Lisa Malter break down the factors that contribute to selecting therapies for moderate to severe IBD, such as disease activity and severity, extraintestinal manifestations, safety, prior anti–tumor necrosis factor exposure, perianal disease, and patient preference.
Drs. Michael G. Rubeiz, Kemmian D. Johnson, and Juan Reyes Genere continue our journey with IBD in the Short Clinical Review section, describing advances in endoscopic therapies in IBD. They review the resection of colitis dysplasia and management of luminal strictures with dilation and stricturotomy.
Early-career faculty are being requested to spearhead diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts at their institutions or for their groups. Drs. Cassandra D.L. Fritz and Nicolette Juliana Rodriguez highlight important aspects that should be considered prior to taking on DEI roles.
In the Finance section, Dr. Animesh Jain answers five common questions for young gastroenterologists. He addresses student loans, disability insurance, life insurance, retirement, and buying a first house.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first biologic therapy for IBD, infliximab, was only approved 25 years ago in 1998.
Yours truly,
Judy A Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
November 2023 - ICYMI
Gastroenterology
July
Newberry C et al. Enhancing Nutrition and Obesity Education in GI Fellowship Through Universal Curriculum Development. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):16-19. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.004. Epub 2023 Apr 13. PMID: 37061170.
Han H et al. Macrophage-derived Osteopontin (SPP1) Protects From Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):201-17. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.03.228. Epub 2023 Apr 5. PMID: 37028770.
Deepak P et al. Health Disparities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Driven by Rural Versus Urban Residence: Challenges and Potential Solutions. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):11-15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.017. PMID: 37349061.
August
Guo L et al. Molecular Profiling Provides Clinical Insights Into Targeted and Immunotherapies as Well as Colorectal Cancer Prognosis. Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):414-28.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.029. Epub 2023 May 3. PMID: 37146911.
Huang DQ et al. Fibrosis Progression Rate in Biopsy-Proven Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among People With Diabetes Versus People Without Diabetes: A Multicenter Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):463-72.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.025. Epub 2023 Apr 29. PMID: 37127100.
Teoh AYB et al. EUS-Guided Choledocho-duodenostomy Using Lumen Apposing Stent Versus ERCP With Covered Metallic Stents in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DRA-MBO Trial). Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):473-82.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.016. Epub 2023 Apr 28. PMID: 37121331.
September
Mehta RS et al. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With Incident Dementia and Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Sep;165(3):564-72.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.052. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37315867; PMCID: PMC10527011.
Ballou S et al. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Bloating: Results From the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Sep;165(3):647-55.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.049. Epub 2023 Jun 13. PMID: 37315866; PMCID: PMC10527500.
CGH
July
Chang JW et al. Development of a Practical Guide to Implement and Monitor Diet Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.006. Epub 2023 Mar 16. PMID: 36933603; PMCID: PMC10293042.
Siboni S et al. Improving the Diagnostic Yield of High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry for GERD: The “Straight Leg-Raise” International Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1761-70.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.10.008. Epub 2022 Oct 19. PMID: 36270615.
August
Wechsler EV et al. Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2378-88.e28. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.01.003. Epub 2023 Jan 13. PMID: 36646234; PMCID: PMC10542651.
Frederiks CN et al. Clinical Relevance of Random Biopsies From the Esophagogastric Junction After Complete Eradication of Barrett’s Esophagus is Low. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2260-9.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.11.012. Epub 2022 Nov 22. PMID: 36423874.
Rustgi SD et al. Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2178-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.010. Epub 2023 Apr 19. PMID: 37086748; PMCID: PMC10526696.
September
Baroud S et al. A Protocolized Management of Walled-Off Necrosis (WON) Reduces Time to WON Resolution and Improves Outcomes. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sep;21(10):2543-50.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.029. Epub 2023 May 8. PMID: 37164115.
Arnim UV et al. Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sep;21(10):2526-33. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.018. Epub 2022 Dec 24. PMID: 36572109.
TIGE
Kaila V et al. Does the Absence of Contrast Passage Into the Duodenum During Intraoperative Cholangiogram Truly Predict Choledocholithiasis? Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2023.05.002.
O’Keefe SJD et al. Early Enteral Feeding in Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial Between Gastric vs Distal Jejunal Feeding. Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2023.06.002.
Gastro Hep Advances
Mukherjee S et al. Assessing ChatGPT’s ability to reply to queries regarding colon cancer screening based on Multi-Society Guidelines. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastha.2023.07.008.
Lopes EW et al. Lochhead P. Improving the Consent Process with an Informed Consent Video Prior to Outpatient Colonoscopy. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastha.2023.07.016.
Gastroenterology
July
Newberry C et al. Enhancing Nutrition and Obesity Education in GI Fellowship Through Universal Curriculum Development. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):16-19. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.004. Epub 2023 Apr 13. PMID: 37061170.
Han H et al. Macrophage-derived Osteopontin (SPP1) Protects From Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):201-17. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.03.228. Epub 2023 Apr 5. PMID: 37028770.
Deepak P et al. Health Disparities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Driven by Rural Versus Urban Residence: Challenges and Potential Solutions. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):11-15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.017. PMID: 37349061.
August
Guo L et al. Molecular Profiling Provides Clinical Insights Into Targeted and Immunotherapies as Well as Colorectal Cancer Prognosis. Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):414-28.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.029. Epub 2023 May 3. PMID: 37146911.
Huang DQ et al. Fibrosis Progression Rate in Biopsy-Proven Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among People With Diabetes Versus People Without Diabetes: A Multicenter Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):463-72.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.025. Epub 2023 Apr 29. PMID: 37127100.
Teoh AYB et al. EUS-Guided Choledocho-duodenostomy Using Lumen Apposing Stent Versus ERCP With Covered Metallic Stents in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DRA-MBO Trial). Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):473-82.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.016. Epub 2023 Apr 28. PMID: 37121331.
September
Mehta RS et al. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With Incident Dementia and Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Sep;165(3):564-72.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.052. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37315867; PMCID: PMC10527011.
Ballou S et al. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Bloating: Results From the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Sep;165(3):647-55.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.049. Epub 2023 Jun 13. PMID: 37315866; PMCID: PMC10527500.
CGH
July
Chang JW et al. Development of a Practical Guide to Implement and Monitor Diet Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.006. Epub 2023 Mar 16. PMID: 36933603; PMCID: PMC10293042.
Siboni S et al. Improving the Diagnostic Yield of High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry for GERD: The “Straight Leg-Raise” International Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1761-70.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.10.008. Epub 2022 Oct 19. PMID: 36270615.
August
Wechsler EV et al. Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2378-88.e28. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.01.003. Epub 2023 Jan 13. PMID: 36646234; PMCID: PMC10542651.
Frederiks CN et al. Clinical Relevance of Random Biopsies From the Esophagogastric Junction After Complete Eradication of Barrett’s Esophagus is Low. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2260-9.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.11.012. Epub 2022 Nov 22. PMID: 36423874.
Rustgi SD et al. Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2178-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.010. Epub 2023 Apr 19. PMID: 37086748; PMCID: PMC10526696.
September
Baroud S et al. A Protocolized Management of Walled-Off Necrosis (WON) Reduces Time to WON Resolution and Improves Outcomes. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sep;21(10):2543-50.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.029. Epub 2023 May 8. PMID: 37164115.
Arnim UV et al. Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sep;21(10):2526-33. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.018. Epub 2022 Dec 24. PMID: 36572109.
TIGE
Kaila V et al. Does the Absence of Contrast Passage Into the Duodenum During Intraoperative Cholangiogram Truly Predict Choledocholithiasis? Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2023.05.002.
O’Keefe SJD et al. Early Enteral Feeding in Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial Between Gastric vs Distal Jejunal Feeding. Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2023.06.002.
Gastro Hep Advances
Mukherjee S et al. Assessing ChatGPT’s ability to reply to queries regarding colon cancer screening based on Multi-Society Guidelines. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastha.2023.07.008.
Lopes EW et al. Lochhead P. Improving the Consent Process with an Informed Consent Video Prior to Outpatient Colonoscopy. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastha.2023.07.016.
Gastroenterology
July
Newberry C et al. Enhancing Nutrition and Obesity Education in GI Fellowship Through Universal Curriculum Development. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):16-19. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.004. Epub 2023 Apr 13. PMID: 37061170.
Han H et al. Macrophage-derived Osteopontin (SPP1) Protects From Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):201-17. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.03.228. Epub 2023 Apr 5. PMID: 37028770.
Deepak P et al. Health Disparities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Driven by Rural Versus Urban Residence: Challenges and Potential Solutions. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jul;165(1):11-15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.017. PMID: 37349061.
August
Guo L et al. Molecular Profiling Provides Clinical Insights Into Targeted and Immunotherapies as Well as Colorectal Cancer Prognosis. Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):414-28.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.029. Epub 2023 May 3. PMID: 37146911.
Huang DQ et al. Fibrosis Progression Rate in Biopsy-Proven Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among People With Diabetes Versus People Without Diabetes: A Multicenter Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):463-72.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.025. Epub 2023 Apr 29. PMID: 37127100.
Teoh AYB et al. EUS-Guided Choledocho-duodenostomy Using Lumen Apposing Stent Versus ERCP With Covered Metallic Stents in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DRA-MBO Trial). Gastroenterology. 2023 Aug;165(2):473-82.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.016. Epub 2023 Apr 28. PMID: 37121331.
September
Mehta RS et al. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With Incident Dementia and Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Sep;165(3):564-72.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.052. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37315867; PMCID: PMC10527011.
Ballou S et al. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Bloating: Results From the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Sep;165(3):647-55.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.049. Epub 2023 Jun 13. PMID: 37315866; PMCID: PMC10527500.
CGH
July
Chang JW et al. Development of a Practical Guide to Implement and Monitor Diet Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.006. Epub 2023 Mar 16. PMID: 36933603; PMCID: PMC10293042.
Siboni S et al. Improving the Diagnostic Yield of High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry for GERD: The “Straight Leg-Raise” International Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1761-70.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.10.008. Epub 2022 Oct 19. PMID: 36270615.
August
Wechsler EV et al. Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2378-88.e28. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.01.003. Epub 2023 Jan 13. PMID: 36646234; PMCID: PMC10542651.
Frederiks CN et al. Clinical Relevance of Random Biopsies From the Esophagogastric Junction After Complete Eradication of Barrett’s Esophagus is Low. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2260-9.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.11.012. Epub 2022 Nov 22. PMID: 36423874.
Rustgi SD et al. Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2178-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.010. Epub 2023 Apr 19. PMID: 37086748; PMCID: PMC10526696.
September
Baroud S et al. A Protocolized Management of Walled-Off Necrosis (WON) Reduces Time to WON Resolution and Improves Outcomes. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sep;21(10):2543-50.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.029. Epub 2023 May 8. PMID: 37164115.
Arnim UV et al. Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sep;21(10):2526-33. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.018. Epub 2022 Dec 24. PMID: 36572109.
TIGE
Kaila V et al. Does the Absence of Contrast Passage Into the Duodenum During Intraoperative Cholangiogram Truly Predict Choledocholithiasis? Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2023.05.002.
O’Keefe SJD et al. Early Enteral Feeding in Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial Between Gastric vs Distal Jejunal Feeding. Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2023.06.002.
Gastro Hep Advances
Mukherjee S et al. Assessing ChatGPT’s ability to reply to queries regarding colon cancer screening based on Multi-Society Guidelines. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastha.2023.07.008.
Lopes EW et al. Lochhead P. Improving the Consent Process with an Informed Consent Video Prior to Outpatient Colonoscopy. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastha.2023.07.016.
Survey finds oral minoxidil shortage in Washington-area pharmacies
A .
Patients are not finding out until they go to pick up their prescription, which can result in an interruption of treatment – and, potentially a loss of hard-earned hair gain, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was the lead author of the survey, published online on Oct. 26 as a research letter in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.
Going off low-dose oral minoxidil may spark a telogen effluvium event, and that is very disappointing to patients, Dr. Friedman told this news organization.
“There needs to be some system that alerts us,” he said. “Even if it’s a minor shortage, just so we’re aware. We can then prepare patients,” he added, noting that it would be better for someone to be taking a lower-than-normal dose rather than no medication at all while they wait for a refill.
Minoxidil has long been approved in a topical formulation to treat androgenetic alopecia, but a low-dose oral form has gained currency in the wake of findings that it might more effectively treat hair loss, and is without side effects. A New York Times article in August 2022 touting low-dose oral minoxidil as a cheap and effective hair loss drug appeared to ignite interest in this option. In May, 2023, researchers reporting in JAMA Network Open demonstrated a significant uptick in prescriptions for oral minoxidil in the wake of the article’s publication.
Oral minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for hypertension, but dermatologists are prescribing it off-label at a lower dose for hair loss. Dr. Friedman said it’s not clear whether the shortages his team found are national in scope, or whether they are a result of increased demand, or other factors.
After several patients told him they were having trouble filling minoxidil prescriptions, and colleagues said they’d had patients with similar experiences, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues undertook the survey. In the first week of October 2023, they contacted 277 pharmacies by phone in Washington and surrounding Virginia and Maryland counties. The pharmacies were CVS, Giant, Walgreens, and Harris Teeter.
Of the 277 pharmacies they contacted, 40% (111) reported availability of 2.5-mg tablets for a 30-day supply, and just under 30% (82) reported having 10-mg tablets for a 30-day supply.
For treating hair loss, most patients are prescribed 2.5-mg pills, with starting doses ranging from 0.625 mg to 5 mg twice a day, Dr. Friedman said. The 10-mg dose is more frequently prescribed for hypertension.
Only 28% (19 of 67) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 2.5-mg tablets on hand, and just 22% (15) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 10-mg tablets. In Northern Virginia, 44% (63 of 143) of the pharmacies had 30-day supplies of the 2.5 mg tablets, as did just 43% (29 of 67) of the Washington pharmacies.
Dr. Friedman said he has started giving patients paper prescriptions they can use to shop around, rather than electronically sending a prescription to a particular pharmacy.
Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the American Society of Health System Pharmacists lists oral minoxidil as a drug in shortage.
Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, said the organization received a report from wholesalers in mid-September showing spotty oral minoxidil availability, with the drug on backorder with some manufacturers. ASHP's shortages list is compiled from reports from physicians, manufacturers and wholesalers, he said.
Under what he calls "blue sky conditions," pharmacies using a just-in-time inventory model should be able to fill prescriptions within hours or days, which might explain why some pharmacies in the Washington, DC area survey did not have a 30-day supply on hand, he said. However, Dr. Ganio noted that the causes of drug shortages are complex and multi-factorial. For now, he said there have been no oral minoxidil shortage reports since mid-September.
But Dr. Friedman said some of his patients have waited weeks for a new supply – and that no one is aware of the problem until the last moment.
The lack of alerts or transparency “also erodes the physician-patient relationship because there’s this expectation of the patient that we should have known this,” said Dr. Friedman.
Dr. Friedman reports no relevant financial relationships.
This story was updated on 11/2/2023.
A .
Patients are not finding out until they go to pick up their prescription, which can result in an interruption of treatment – and, potentially a loss of hard-earned hair gain, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was the lead author of the survey, published online on Oct. 26 as a research letter in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.
Going off low-dose oral minoxidil may spark a telogen effluvium event, and that is very disappointing to patients, Dr. Friedman told this news organization.
“There needs to be some system that alerts us,” he said. “Even if it’s a minor shortage, just so we’re aware. We can then prepare patients,” he added, noting that it would be better for someone to be taking a lower-than-normal dose rather than no medication at all while they wait for a refill.
Minoxidil has long been approved in a topical formulation to treat androgenetic alopecia, but a low-dose oral form has gained currency in the wake of findings that it might more effectively treat hair loss, and is without side effects. A New York Times article in August 2022 touting low-dose oral minoxidil as a cheap and effective hair loss drug appeared to ignite interest in this option. In May, 2023, researchers reporting in JAMA Network Open demonstrated a significant uptick in prescriptions for oral minoxidil in the wake of the article’s publication.
Oral minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for hypertension, but dermatologists are prescribing it off-label at a lower dose for hair loss. Dr. Friedman said it’s not clear whether the shortages his team found are national in scope, or whether they are a result of increased demand, or other factors.
After several patients told him they were having trouble filling minoxidil prescriptions, and colleagues said they’d had patients with similar experiences, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues undertook the survey. In the first week of October 2023, they contacted 277 pharmacies by phone in Washington and surrounding Virginia and Maryland counties. The pharmacies were CVS, Giant, Walgreens, and Harris Teeter.
Of the 277 pharmacies they contacted, 40% (111) reported availability of 2.5-mg tablets for a 30-day supply, and just under 30% (82) reported having 10-mg tablets for a 30-day supply.
For treating hair loss, most patients are prescribed 2.5-mg pills, with starting doses ranging from 0.625 mg to 5 mg twice a day, Dr. Friedman said. The 10-mg dose is more frequently prescribed for hypertension.
Only 28% (19 of 67) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 2.5-mg tablets on hand, and just 22% (15) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 10-mg tablets. In Northern Virginia, 44% (63 of 143) of the pharmacies had 30-day supplies of the 2.5 mg tablets, as did just 43% (29 of 67) of the Washington pharmacies.
Dr. Friedman said he has started giving patients paper prescriptions they can use to shop around, rather than electronically sending a prescription to a particular pharmacy.
Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the American Society of Health System Pharmacists lists oral minoxidil as a drug in shortage.
Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, said the organization received a report from wholesalers in mid-September showing spotty oral minoxidil availability, with the drug on backorder with some manufacturers. ASHP's shortages list is compiled from reports from physicians, manufacturers and wholesalers, he said.
Under what he calls "blue sky conditions," pharmacies using a just-in-time inventory model should be able to fill prescriptions within hours or days, which might explain why some pharmacies in the Washington, DC area survey did not have a 30-day supply on hand, he said. However, Dr. Ganio noted that the causes of drug shortages are complex and multi-factorial. For now, he said there have been no oral minoxidil shortage reports since mid-September.
But Dr. Friedman said some of his patients have waited weeks for a new supply – and that no one is aware of the problem until the last moment.
The lack of alerts or transparency “also erodes the physician-patient relationship because there’s this expectation of the patient that we should have known this,” said Dr. Friedman.
Dr. Friedman reports no relevant financial relationships.
This story was updated on 11/2/2023.
A .
Patients are not finding out until they go to pick up their prescription, which can result in an interruption of treatment – and, potentially a loss of hard-earned hair gain, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was the lead author of the survey, published online on Oct. 26 as a research letter in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.
Going off low-dose oral minoxidil may spark a telogen effluvium event, and that is very disappointing to patients, Dr. Friedman told this news organization.
“There needs to be some system that alerts us,” he said. “Even if it’s a minor shortage, just so we’re aware. We can then prepare patients,” he added, noting that it would be better for someone to be taking a lower-than-normal dose rather than no medication at all while they wait for a refill.
Minoxidil has long been approved in a topical formulation to treat androgenetic alopecia, but a low-dose oral form has gained currency in the wake of findings that it might more effectively treat hair loss, and is without side effects. A New York Times article in August 2022 touting low-dose oral minoxidil as a cheap and effective hair loss drug appeared to ignite interest in this option. In May, 2023, researchers reporting in JAMA Network Open demonstrated a significant uptick in prescriptions for oral minoxidil in the wake of the article’s publication.
Oral minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for hypertension, but dermatologists are prescribing it off-label at a lower dose for hair loss. Dr. Friedman said it’s not clear whether the shortages his team found are national in scope, or whether they are a result of increased demand, or other factors.
After several patients told him they were having trouble filling minoxidil prescriptions, and colleagues said they’d had patients with similar experiences, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues undertook the survey. In the first week of October 2023, they contacted 277 pharmacies by phone in Washington and surrounding Virginia and Maryland counties. The pharmacies were CVS, Giant, Walgreens, and Harris Teeter.
Of the 277 pharmacies they contacted, 40% (111) reported availability of 2.5-mg tablets for a 30-day supply, and just under 30% (82) reported having 10-mg tablets for a 30-day supply.
For treating hair loss, most patients are prescribed 2.5-mg pills, with starting doses ranging from 0.625 mg to 5 mg twice a day, Dr. Friedman said. The 10-mg dose is more frequently prescribed for hypertension.
Only 28% (19 of 67) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 2.5-mg tablets on hand, and just 22% (15) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 10-mg tablets. In Northern Virginia, 44% (63 of 143) of the pharmacies had 30-day supplies of the 2.5 mg tablets, as did just 43% (29 of 67) of the Washington pharmacies.
Dr. Friedman said he has started giving patients paper prescriptions they can use to shop around, rather than electronically sending a prescription to a particular pharmacy.
Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the American Society of Health System Pharmacists lists oral minoxidil as a drug in shortage.
Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, said the organization received a report from wholesalers in mid-September showing spotty oral minoxidil availability, with the drug on backorder with some manufacturers. ASHP's shortages list is compiled from reports from physicians, manufacturers and wholesalers, he said.
Under what he calls "blue sky conditions," pharmacies using a just-in-time inventory model should be able to fill prescriptions within hours or days, which might explain why some pharmacies in the Washington, DC area survey did not have a 30-day supply on hand, he said. However, Dr. Ganio noted that the causes of drug shortages are complex and multi-factorial. For now, he said there have been no oral minoxidil shortage reports since mid-September.
But Dr. Friedman said some of his patients have waited weeks for a new supply – and that no one is aware of the problem until the last moment.
The lack of alerts or transparency “also erodes the physician-patient relationship because there’s this expectation of the patient that we should have known this,” said Dr. Friedman.
Dr. Friedman reports no relevant financial relationships.
This story was updated on 11/2/2023.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF DRUGS IN DERMATOLOGY
Semaglutide prescribing surged in the past year
Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.
Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.
General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.
“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”
Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?
However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”
Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.
Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”
Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.
Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”
Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”
The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.
Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.
General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.
“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”
Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?
However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”
Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.
Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”
Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.
Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”
Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”
The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.
Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.
General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.
“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”
Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?
However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”
Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.
Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”
Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.
Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”
Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”
The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analysis of Internal Dermatology Matches Following the COVID-19 Pandemic
Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.1
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.2 This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.
A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.
We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.
Methods
Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ2 tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.
Results
Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).2 One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.
Comment
The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.2 The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.4
The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.3 Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.5 Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.
During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.6 Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.
This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.
Conclusion
Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.
- Luu Y, Gao W, Han J, et al. Personal connections and preference signaling: a cross-sectional analysis of the dermatology residency match during COVID-19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:1381-1383. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2023.01.032
- Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Tarbox MB, et al. An analysis of internal and regional dermatology matches during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:207-209. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.04.036
- Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Wagner RF. Internal and geographic dermatology match trends in the age of COVID-19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:1364-1366. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.004
- Abdelwahab R, Antezana LA, Xie KZ, et al. Cross-sectional study of dermatology residency home match incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:886-888. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.12.004
- Williams GE, Zimmerman JM, Wiggins CJ, et al. The indelible marks on dermatology: impacts of COVID-19 on dermatology residency Match using the Texas STAR database. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:215-218. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2022.12.001
- Dirr MA, Brownstone N, Zakria D, et al. Dermatology match preference signaling tokens: impact and implications. Dermatol Surg. 2022;48:1367-1368. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000003645
Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.1
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.2 This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.
A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.
We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.
Methods
Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ2 tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.
Results
Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).2 One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.
Comment
The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.2 The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.4
The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.3 Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.5 Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.
During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.6 Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.
This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.
Conclusion
Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.
Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.1
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.2 This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.
A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.
We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.
Methods
Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ2 tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.
Results
Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).2 One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.
Comment
The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.2 The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.4
The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.3 Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.5 Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.
During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.6 Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.
This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.
Conclusion
Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.
- Luu Y, Gao W, Han J, et al. Personal connections and preference signaling: a cross-sectional analysis of the dermatology residency match during COVID-19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:1381-1383. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2023.01.032
- Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Tarbox MB, et al. An analysis of internal and regional dermatology matches during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:207-209. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.04.036
- Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Wagner RF. Internal and geographic dermatology match trends in the age of COVID-19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:1364-1366. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.004
- Abdelwahab R, Antezana LA, Xie KZ, et al. Cross-sectional study of dermatology residency home match incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:886-888. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.12.004
- Williams GE, Zimmerman JM, Wiggins CJ, et al. The indelible marks on dermatology: impacts of COVID-19 on dermatology residency Match using the Texas STAR database. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:215-218. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2022.12.001
- Dirr MA, Brownstone N, Zakria D, et al. Dermatology match preference signaling tokens: impact and implications. Dermatol Surg. 2022;48:1367-1368. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000003645
- Luu Y, Gao W, Han J, et al. Personal connections and preference signaling: a cross-sectional analysis of the dermatology residency match during COVID-19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:1381-1383. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2023.01.032
- Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Tarbox MB, et al. An analysis of internal and regional dermatology matches during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:207-209. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.04.036
- Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Wagner RF. Internal and geographic dermatology match trends in the age of COVID-19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:1364-1366. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.004
- Abdelwahab R, Antezana LA, Xie KZ, et al. Cross-sectional study of dermatology residency home match incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:886-888. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.12.004
- Williams GE, Zimmerman JM, Wiggins CJ, et al. The indelible marks on dermatology: impacts of COVID-19 on dermatology residency Match using the Texas STAR database. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:215-218. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2022.12.001
- Dirr MA, Brownstone N, Zakria D, et al. Dermatology match preference signaling tokens: impact and implications. Dermatol Surg. 2022;48:1367-1368. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000003645
PRACTICE POINTS
- Following the COVID-19 pandemic, affiliation with a home program is even more impactful in successful application to dermatology residency. Applicants from institutions without dermatology programs should consider completing additional externships.
- The high rate of applicants matching to the same regions as their home programs is due to several factors. Applicants may have a larger social support system near their home institution. Additionally, programs are more comfortable matching applicants within their own regions.
Cutaneous Collagenous Vasculopathy With Ocular Involvement
To the Editor:
Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy (CCV) is an uncommon microangiopathy that presents with progressive telangiectases on the lower extremities that can eventually spread to involve the upper extremities and trunk. Systemic involvement is uncommon. The diagnosis is confirmed by biopsy, which demonstrates dilated capillaries and postcapillary venules with eosinophilic hyalinized walls. Treatment generally has focused on the use of vascular lasers.1 We report a patient with advanced CCV and ocular involvement that responded to a combination of pulsed dye laser (PDL) therapy and sclerotherapy for cutaneous lesions.
A 63-year-old woman presented with partially blanchable, purple-black patches on the lower extremities (Figure 1). The upper extremities had minimal involvement at the time of presentation. A medical history revealed the lesions presented on the legs 10 years prior but were beginning to form on the arms. She had a history of hypertension and bleeding in the retina.
Histopathology revealed prominent dilation of postcapillary venules with eosinophilic collagenous materials in the vessel walls that was positive on periodic acid–Schiff stain, confirming the diagnosis of CCV. The perivascular collagenous material failed to stain with Congo red. Laboratory testing for serum protein electrophoresis, antinuclear antibodies, and baseline hematologic and metabolic panels revealed no abnormalities.
Over 3 years of treatment with PDL, most of the black patches resolved, but prominent telangiectatic vessels remained (Figure 2). Sclerotherapy with polidocanol (10 mg/mL) resulted in clearance of the majority of telangiectatic vessels. After each sclerotherapy treatment, Unna boots were applied for a minimum of 24 hours. The patient had no adverse effects from either PDL or sclerotherapy and was pleased with the results (Figure 3). An ophthalmologist had attributed the retinal bleeding to central serous chorioretinopathy, but tortuosity of superficial scleral and episcleral vessels progressed, suggesting CCV as the more likely cause (Figure 4). Currently, she is being followed for visual changes and further retinal bleeding.
Early CCV typically appears as blanchable pink or red macules, telangiectases, or petechiae on the lower extremities, progressing to involve the trunk and upper extremity.1-3 In rare cases, CCV presents in a papular or annular variant instead of the typical telangiectatic form.4,5 As the lesions progress, they often darken in appearance. Bleeding can occur, and the progressive patches are disfiguring.6,7 Middle-aged to older adults typically present with CCV (range, 16–83 years), with a mean age of 62 years.1,2,6 This disease affects both males and females, predominantly in White individuals.1 Extracutaneous manifestations are rare.1,2,6 One case of mucosal involvement was described in a patient with glossitis and oral erosions.8 We found no prior reports of nail or eye changes.1,2
The etiology of CCV is unknown, but different theories have been proposed. One is that CCV is due to a genetic defect that changes collagen synthesis in the cutaneous microvasculature. Another more widely held belief is that CCV originates from an injury that occurs to the microvasculature endothelial cells. Regardless of the cause of the triggering injury, the result is induced intravascular occlusive microthrombi that cause perivascular fibrosis and endothelial hyperplasia.2,6,7,9
Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy may be influenced by systemic diseases. The most common comorbidities are hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia.1,3,6-8 The presentation of CCV with a malignancy is rare; 1 patient was diagnosed with multiple myeloma 18 months after CCV, and another patient’s cutaneous presentation led to discovery of pancreatic cancer with metastasis.8,10 In this setting, the increased growth factors or hypercoagulability of malignancy may play a role in endothelial cell damage and hyperplasia. Autoimmune vascular injury also has been suggested to trigger CCV; 1 case involved antiribonucleoprotein antibodies, while another case involved anti–endothelial cell antibody assays.11 In addition, CCV has been reported in hypercoagulable patients, demonstrating another route for endothelial damage, with 1 patient being heterozygous for prothrombin G20210A, a report of CCV in a patient with cryofibrinogenemia, and another patient being found positive for lupus anticoagulant.11,12 Drugs also have been thought to influence CCV, including corticosteroids, lithium, thiothixene, interferon, isotretinoin, calcium channel blockers, antibiotics, hydroxyurea, and antidepressants.7,11
The diagnosis of CCV is confirmed using light microscopy and collagen-specific immunostaining. Examination shows hyaline eosinophilic deposition of type IV collagen around the affected vessels, with the postcapillary venules showing characteristic duplication of the basal lamina.3,9 The material stains positive with periodic acid-Schiff and Masson trichrome.3
Underreporting may contribute to the low incidence of CCV. The clinical presentation of CCV is similar to generalized essential telangiectasia, with biopsy distinguishing the two. Other diagnoses in the differential include hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, which typically would have mucosal involvement; radiating telangiectatic mats and a strong family history; and hereditary benign telangiectasia, which typically presents in younger patients aged 1 year to adolescence.1
Treatment with vascular lasers has been the main focus, using either the 595-nm PDL or the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser.6,13 Pulsed dye laser or intense pulsed light devices can improve patient well-being1,2; intense pulsed light allows for a larger spot size and may be preferred in patients with a larger body surface area involved.13 However, a few other treatments have been proposed. One case report noted poor response to sclerotherapy.1 In another case, a patient treated with a chemotherapy agent, bortezomib, for their concurrent multiple myeloma showed notable CCV cutaneous improvement. The proposed mechanism for bortezomib improving CCV is through its antiproliferative effect on endothelial cells of the superficial dermal vessels.8 Our patient did not achieve an adequate response with PDL, but the addition of sclerotherapy with polidocanol induced a successful response.
Patients should be examined for evidence of ocular involvement and referred to an ophthalmologist for appropriate care. Although there is no definite association with systemic illnesses or mediation, recent associations with an autoimmune disorder or underlying malignancy have been noted.8,10,11 Age-appropriate cancer screening and attention to associated signs and symptoms are recommended.
- Brady BG, Ortleb M, Boyd AS, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2015;8:49-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/dad.0000000000000194
- Castiñeiras-Mato I, Rodríguez-Lojo R, Fernández-Díaz ML, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a case report and review of the literature. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016;107:444-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2015.11.006
- Rambhia KD, Hadawale SD, Khopkar US. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a rare case report. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2016;7:40-42. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5178.174327
- Conde-Ferreirós A, Roncero-Riesco M, Cañueto J, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: papular form [published online August 15, 2019]. Dermatol Online J. https://doi.org/10.5070/d3258045128
- García-Martínez P, Gomez-Martin I, Lloreta J, et al. Multiple progressive annular telangiectasias: a clinicopathological variant of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy? J Cutan Pathol. 2017;44:982-985. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13029
- Sartori DS, de Almeida Jr HL, Dorn TV, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: light and transmission electron microscopy. An Bras Dermatol. 2019;94:211-213. https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20198166
- Basso D, Ribero S, Blazek C, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a rare form of microangiopathy successfully treated with a combination of multiplex laser and optimized pulsed light with a review of the literature. Dermatology. 2016;232:107-111. https://doi.org/10.1159/000439126
- Dura M, Pock L, Cetkovska P, et al. A case of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy associated with multiple myeloma and with a pathogenic variant of the glucocerebrosidase gene. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:717-721. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.14227
- Salama S, Chorneyko K, Belovic B. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy associated with intravascular occlusive fibrin thrombi. J Cutan Pathol. 2014;41:386-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.12285
- Holder E, Schreckenberg C, Lipsker D. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy leading to the diagnosis of an advanced pancreatic cancer. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36:E699-E701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.18152
- Grossman ME, Cohen M, Ravits M, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a report of three cases. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:491-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.14192
- Eldik H, Leisenring NH, Al-Rohil RN, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy in a middle-aged woman with a history of prothrombin G20210A thrombophilia. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:679-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13895
- Weiss E, Lazzara DR. Commentary on clinical improvement of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy with intense pulsed light therapy. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:1412. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003209
To the Editor:
Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy (CCV) is an uncommon microangiopathy that presents with progressive telangiectases on the lower extremities that can eventually spread to involve the upper extremities and trunk. Systemic involvement is uncommon. The diagnosis is confirmed by biopsy, which demonstrates dilated capillaries and postcapillary venules with eosinophilic hyalinized walls. Treatment generally has focused on the use of vascular lasers.1 We report a patient with advanced CCV and ocular involvement that responded to a combination of pulsed dye laser (PDL) therapy and sclerotherapy for cutaneous lesions.
A 63-year-old woman presented with partially blanchable, purple-black patches on the lower extremities (Figure 1). The upper extremities had minimal involvement at the time of presentation. A medical history revealed the lesions presented on the legs 10 years prior but were beginning to form on the arms. She had a history of hypertension and bleeding in the retina.
Histopathology revealed prominent dilation of postcapillary venules with eosinophilic collagenous materials in the vessel walls that was positive on periodic acid–Schiff stain, confirming the diagnosis of CCV. The perivascular collagenous material failed to stain with Congo red. Laboratory testing for serum protein electrophoresis, antinuclear antibodies, and baseline hematologic and metabolic panels revealed no abnormalities.
Over 3 years of treatment with PDL, most of the black patches resolved, but prominent telangiectatic vessels remained (Figure 2). Sclerotherapy with polidocanol (10 mg/mL) resulted in clearance of the majority of telangiectatic vessels. After each sclerotherapy treatment, Unna boots were applied for a minimum of 24 hours. The patient had no adverse effects from either PDL or sclerotherapy and was pleased with the results (Figure 3). An ophthalmologist had attributed the retinal bleeding to central serous chorioretinopathy, but tortuosity of superficial scleral and episcleral vessels progressed, suggesting CCV as the more likely cause (Figure 4). Currently, she is being followed for visual changes and further retinal bleeding.
Early CCV typically appears as blanchable pink or red macules, telangiectases, or petechiae on the lower extremities, progressing to involve the trunk and upper extremity.1-3 In rare cases, CCV presents in a papular or annular variant instead of the typical telangiectatic form.4,5 As the lesions progress, they often darken in appearance. Bleeding can occur, and the progressive patches are disfiguring.6,7 Middle-aged to older adults typically present with CCV (range, 16–83 years), with a mean age of 62 years.1,2,6 This disease affects both males and females, predominantly in White individuals.1 Extracutaneous manifestations are rare.1,2,6 One case of mucosal involvement was described in a patient with glossitis and oral erosions.8 We found no prior reports of nail or eye changes.1,2
The etiology of CCV is unknown, but different theories have been proposed. One is that CCV is due to a genetic defect that changes collagen synthesis in the cutaneous microvasculature. Another more widely held belief is that CCV originates from an injury that occurs to the microvasculature endothelial cells. Regardless of the cause of the triggering injury, the result is induced intravascular occlusive microthrombi that cause perivascular fibrosis and endothelial hyperplasia.2,6,7,9
Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy may be influenced by systemic diseases. The most common comorbidities are hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia.1,3,6-8 The presentation of CCV with a malignancy is rare; 1 patient was diagnosed with multiple myeloma 18 months after CCV, and another patient’s cutaneous presentation led to discovery of pancreatic cancer with metastasis.8,10 In this setting, the increased growth factors or hypercoagulability of malignancy may play a role in endothelial cell damage and hyperplasia. Autoimmune vascular injury also has been suggested to trigger CCV; 1 case involved antiribonucleoprotein antibodies, while another case involved anti–endothelial cell antibody assays.11 In addition, CCV has been reported in hypercoagulable patients, demonstrating another route for endothelial damage, with 1 patient being heterozygous for prothrombin G20210A, a report of CCV in a patient with cryofibrinogenemia, and another patient being found positive for lupus anticoagulant.11,12 Drugs also have been thought to influence CCV, including corticosteroids, lithium, thiothixene, interferon, isotretinoin, calcium channel blockers, antibiotics, hydroxyurea, and antidepressants.7,11
The diagnosis of CCV is confirmed using light microscopy and collagen-specific immunostaining. Examination shows hyaline eosinophilic deposition of type IV collagen around the affected vessels, with the postcapillary venules showing characteristic duplication of the basal lamina.3,9 The material stains positive with periodic acid-Schiff and Masson trichrome.3
Underreporting may contribute to the low incidence of CCV. The clinical presentation of CCV is similar to generalized essential telangiectasia, with biopsy distinguishing the two. Other diagnoses in the differential include hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, which typically would have mucosal involvement; radiating telangiectatic mats and a strong family history; and hereditary benign telangiectasia, which typically presents in younger patients aged 1 year to adolescence.1
Treatment with vascular lasers has been the main focus, using either the 595-nm PDL or the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser.6,13 Pulsed dye laser or intense pulsed light devices can improve patient well-being1,2; intense pulsed light allows for a larger spot size and may be preferred in patients with a larger body surface area involved.13 However, a few other treatments have been proposed. One case report noted poor response to sclerotherapy.1 In another case, a patient treated with a chemotherapy agent, bortezomib, for their concurrent multiple myeloma showed notable CCV cutaneous improvement. The proposed mechanism for bortezomib improving CCV is through its antiproliferative effect on endothelial cells of the superficial dermal vessels.8 Our patient did not achieve an adequate response with PDL, but the addition of sclerotherapy with polidocanol induced a successful response.
Patients should be examined for evidence of ocular involvement and referred to an ophthalmologist for appropriate care. Although there is no definite association with systemic illnesses or mediation, recent associations with an autoimmune disorder or underlying malignancy have been noted.8,10,11 Age-appropriate cancer screening and attention to associated signs and symptoms are recommended.
To the Editor:
Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy (CCV) is an uncommon microangiopathy that presents with progressive telangiectases on the lower extremities that can eventually spread to involve the upper extremities and trunk. Systemic involvement is uncommon. The diagnosis is confirmed by biopsy, which demonstrates dilated capillaries and postcapillary venules with eosinophilic hyalinized walls. Treatment generally has focused on the use of vascular lasers.1 We report a patient with advanced CCV and ocular involvement that responded to a combination of pulsed dye laser (PDL) therapy and sclerotherapy for cutaneous lesions.
A 63-year-old woman presented with partially blanchable, purple-black patches on the lower extremities (Figure 1). The upper extremities had minimal involvement at the time of presentation. A medical history revealed the lesions presented on the legs 10 years prior but were beginning to form on the arms. She had a history of hypertension and bleeding in the retina.
Histopathology revealed prominent dilation of postcapillary venules with eosinophilic collagenous materials in the vessel walls that was positive on periodic acid–Schiff stain, confirming the diagnosis of CCV. The perivascular collagenous material failed to stain with Congo red. Laboratory testing for serum protein electrophoresis, antinuclear antibodies, and baseline hematologic and metabolic panels revealed no abnormalities.
Over 3 years of treatment with PDL, most of the black patches resolved, but prominent telangiectatic vessels remained (Figure 2). Sclerotherapy with polidocanol (10 mg/mL) resulted in clearance of the majority of telangiectatic vessels. After each sclerotherapy treatment, Unna boots were applied for a minimum of 24 hours. The patient had no adverse effects from either PDL or sclerotherapy and was pleased with the results (Figure 3). An ophthalmologist had attributed the retinal bleeding to central serous chorioretinopathy, but tortuosity of superficial scleral and episcleral vessels progressed, suggesting CCV as the more likely cause (Figure 4). Currently, she is being followed for visual changes and further retinal bleeding.
Early CCV typically appears as blanchable pink or red macules, telangiectases, or petechiae on the lower extremities, progressing to involve the trunk and upper extremity.1-3 In rare cases, CCV presents in a papular or annular variant instead of the typical telangiectatic form.4,5 As the lesions progress, they often darken in appearance. Bleeding can occur, and the progressive patches are disfiguring.6,7 Middle-aged to older adults typically present with CCV (range, 16–83 years), with a mean age of 62 years.1,2,6 This disease affects both males and females, predominantly in White individuals.1 Extracutaneous manifestations are rare.1,2,6 One case of mucosal involvement was described in a patient with glossitis and oral erosions.8 We found no prior reports of nail or eye changes.1,2
The etiology of CCV is unknown, but different theories have been proposed. One is that CCV is due to a genetic defect that changes collagen synthesis in the cutaneous microvasculature. Another more widely held belief is that CCV originates from an injury that occurs to the microvasculature endothelial cells. Regardless of the cause of the triggering injury, the result is induced intravascular occlusive microthrombi that cause perivascular fibrosis and endothelial hyperplasia.2,6,7,9
Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy may be influenced by systemic diseases. The most common comorbidities are hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia.1,3,6-8 The presentation of CCV with a malignancy is rare; 1 patient was diagnosed with multiple myeloma 18 months after CCV, and another patient’s cutaneous presentation led to discovery of pancreatic cancer with metastasis.8,10 In this setting, the increased growth factors or hypercoagulability of malignancy may play a role in endothelial cell damage and hyperplasia. Autoimmune vascular injury also has been suggested to trigger CCV; 1 case involved antiribonucleoprotein antibodies, while another case involved anti–endothelial cell antibody assays.11 In addition, CCV has been reported in hypercoagulable patients, demonstrating another route for endothelial damage, with 1 patient being heterozygous for prothrombin G20210A, a report of CCV in a patient with cryofibrinogenemia, and another patient being found positive for lupus anticoagulant.11,12 Drugs also have been thought to influence CCV, including corticosteroids, lithium, thiothixene, interferon, isotretinoin, calcium channel blockers, antibiotics, hydroxyurea, and antidepressants.7,11
The diagnosis of CCV is confirmed using light microscopy and collagen-specific immunostaining. Examination shows hyaline eosinophilic deposition of type IV collagen around the affected vessels, with the postcapillary venules showing characteristic duplication of the basal lamina.3,9 The material stains positive with periodic acid-Schiff and Masson trichrome.3
Underreporting may contribute to the low incidence of CCV. The clinical presentation of CCV is similar to generalized essential telangiectasia, with biopsy distinguishing the two. Other diagnoses in the differential include hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, which typically would have mucosal involvement; radiating telangiectatic mats and a strong family history; and hereditary benign telangiectasia, which typically presents in younger patients aged 1 year to adolescence.1
Treatment with vascular lasers has been the main focus, using either the 595-nm PDL or the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser.6,13 Pulsed dye laser or intense pulsed light devices can improve patient well-being1,2; intense pulsed light allows for a larger spot size and may be preferred in patients with a larger body surface area involved.13 However, a few other treatments have been proposed. One case report noted poor response to sclerotherapy.1 In another case, a patient treated with a chemotherapy agent, bortezomib, for their concurrent multiple myeloma showed notable CCV cutaneous improvement. The proposed mechanism for bortezomib improving CCV is through its antiproliferative effect on endothelial cells of the superficial dermal vessels.8 Our patient did not achieve an adequate response with PDL, but the addition of sclerotherapy with polidocanol induced a successful response.
Patients should be examined for evidence of ocular involvement and referred to an ophthalmologist for appropriate care. Although there is no definite association with systemic illnesses or mediation, recent associations with an autoimmune disorder or underlying malignancy have been noted.8,10,11 Age-appropriate cancer screening and attention to associated signs and symptoms are recommended.
- Brady BG, Ortleb M, Boyd AS, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2015;8:49-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/dad.0000000000000194
- Castiñeiras-Mato I, Rodríguez-Lojo R, Fernández-Díaz ML, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a case report and review of the literature. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016;107:444-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2015.11.006
- Rambhia KD, Hadawale SD, Khopkar US. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a rare case report. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2016;7:40-42. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5178.174327
- Conde-Ferreirós A, Roncero-Riesco M, Cañueto J, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: papular form [published online August 15, 2019]. Dermatol Online J. https://doi.org/10.5070/d3258045128
- García-Martínez P, Gomez-Martin I, Lloreta J, et al. Multiple progressive annular telangiectasias: a clinicopathological variant of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy? J Cutan Pathol. 2017;44:982-985. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13029
- Sartori DS, de Almeida Jr HL, Dorn TV, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: light and transmission electron microscopy. An Bras Dermatol. 2019;94:211-213. https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20198166
- Basso D, Ribero S, Blazek C, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a rare form of microangiopathy successfully treated with a combination of multiplex laser and optimized pulsed light with a review of the literature. Dermatology. 2016;232:107-111. https://doi.org/10.1159/000439126
- Dura M, Pock L, Cetkovska P, et al. A case of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy associated with multiple myeloma and with a pathogenic variant of the glucocerebrosidase gene. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:717-721. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.14227
- Salama S, Chorneyko K, Belovic B. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy associated with intravascular occlusive fibrin thrombi. J Cutan Pathol. 2014;41:386-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.12285
- Holder E, Schreckenberg C, Lipsker D. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy leading to the diagnosis of an advanced pancreatic cancer. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36:E699-E701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.18152
- Grossman ME, Cohen M, Ravits M, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a report of three cases. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:491-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.14192
- Eldik H, Leisenring NH, Al-Rohil RN, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy in a middle-aged woman with a history of prothrombin G20210A thrombophilia. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:679-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13895
- Weiss E, Lazzara DR. Commentary on clinical improvement of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy with intense pulsed light therapy. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:1412. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003209
- Brady BG, Ortleb M, Boyd AS, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2015;8:49-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/dad.0000000000000194
- Castiñeiras-Mato I, Rodríguez-Lojo R, Fernández-Díaz ML, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a case report and review of the literature. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016;107:444-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2015.11.006
- Rambhia KD, Hadawale SD, Khopkar US. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a rare case report. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2016;7:40-42. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5178.174327
- Conde-Ferreirós A, Roncero-Riesco M, Cañueto J, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: papular form [published online August 15, 2019]. Dermatol Online J. https://doi.org/10.5070/d3258045128
- García-Martínez P, Gomez-Martin I, Lloreta J, et al. Multiple progressive annular telangiectasias: a clinicopathological variant of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy? J Cutan Pathol. 2017;44:982-985. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13029
- Sartori DS, de Almeida Jr HL, Dorn TV, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: light and transmission electron microscopy. An Bras Dermatol. 2019;94:211-213. https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20198166
- Basso D, Ribero S, Blazek C, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a rare form of microangiopathy successfully treated with a combination of multiplex laser and optimized pulsed light with a review of the literature. Dermatology. 2016;232:107-111. https://doi.org/10.1159/000439126
- Dura M, Pock L, Cetkovska P, et al. A case of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy associated with multiple myeloma and with a pathogenic variant of the glucocerebrosidase gene. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:717-721. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.14227
- Salama S, Chorneyko K, Belovic B. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy associated with intravascular occlusive fibrin thrombi. J Cutan Pathol. 2014;41:386-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.12285
- Holder E, Schreckenberg C, Lipsker D. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy leading to the diagnosis of an advanced pancreatic cancer. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36:E699-E701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.18152
- Grossman ME, Cohen M, Ravits M, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy: a report of three cases. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:491-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.14192
- Eldik H, Leisenring NH, Al-Rohil RN, et al. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy in a middle-aged woman with a history of prothrombin G20210A thrombophilia. J Cutan Pathol. 2022;49:679-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13895
- Weiss E, Lazzara DR. Commentary on clinical improvement of cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy with intense pulsed light therapy. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:1412. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003209
Practice Points
- Collagenous vasculopathy is an underrecognized entity.
- Although most patients exhibit only cutaneous disease, systemic involvement also should be assessed.
