MDedge Dermatology

Practice Gap

Scalp defects that extend to or below the periosteum often pose a reconstructive conundrum. Secondary-intention healing is challenging without an intact periosteum, and complex rotational flaps are required in these scenarios.¹ For a tumor that is at high risk for recurrence or when adjuvant therapy is necessary, tissue distortion of flaps can make monitoring for recurrence difficult. Similarly, for patients in poor health or who are elderly and have substantial skin atrophy, extensive closure may be undesirable or more technically challenging with a higher risk for adverse events. In these scenarios, additional strategies are necessary to optimize wound healing and cosmesis. A cadaveric split-thickness skin graft (STSG) consisting of biologically active tissue can be used to expedite granulation.²

Technique

Following tumor clearance on the scalp (Figure 1), wide undermining is performed and 3-0 polyglactin 910 epidermal pulley sutures are placed to partially close the defect. A cadaveric STSG is placed over the remaining exposed periosteum and secured under the pulley sutures (Figure 2). The cadaveric STSG is replaced at 1-week intervals. At 4 weeks, sutures typically are removed. The cadaveric STSG is used until the exposed periosteum is fully granulated and the surgeon decides that granulation arrest is unlikely. The wound then heals by unassisted granulation. This approach provides an excellent final cosmetic outcome while avoiding extensive reconstruction (Figure 3).

Practice Implications

Scalp defects requiring closure are common for dermatologic surgeons. Several techniques to promote tissue granulation in defects that involve exposed periosteum have been reported, including (1) creation of small holes with a scalpel or chisel to access cortical circulation and (2) using laser modalities to stimulate granulation (eg, an erbium:YAG or CO₂ laser).^3,4 Although direct comparative studies are needed, the cadaveric STSG provides an approach that increases tissue granulation but does not require more invasive techniques or equipment.

Autologous STSGs need a wound bed and can fail with an exposed periosteum. Furthermore, an autologous STSG that survives may leave an unsightly, hypopigmented, depressed defect. When a defect involves the periosteum and a primary closure or flap is not ideal, a skin substitute may be an option.

Skin substitutes, including cadaveric STSG, generally are classified as bioengineered skin equivalents, amniotic tissue, or cadaveric bioproducts (Table). Unlike autologous grafts, these skin substitutes can provide rapid coverage of the defect and do not require a highly vascularized wound bed.⁶ They also minimize the inflammatory response and potentially improve the final cosmetic outcome by improving granulation rather than immediate STSG closure creating a step-off in deep wounds.⁶

Cadaveric STSGs also have been used in nonhealing ulcerations; diabetic foot ulcers; and ulcerations in which muscle, tendon, or bone are exposed, demonstrating induction of wound healing with superior scar quality and skin function.^2,7,8 The utility of the cadaveric STSG is further highlighted by its potential to reduce costs⁹ compared to bioengineered skin substitutes, though considerable variability exists in pricing (Table).

Consider using a cadaveric STSG with a guiding closure in cases in which there is concern for delayed or absent tissue granulation or when monitoring for recurrence is essential.

Practice Gap

Scalp defects that extend to or below the periosteum often pose a reconstructive conundrum. Secondary-intention healing is challenging without an intact periosteum, and complex rotational flaps are required in these scenarios.¹ For a tumor that is at high risk for recurrence or when adjuvant therapy is necessary, tissue distortion of flaps can make monitoring for recurrence difficult. Similarly, for patients in poor health or who are elderly and have substantial skin atrophy, extensive closure may be undesirable or more technically challenging with a higher risk for adverse events. In these scenarios, additional strategies are necessary to optimize wound healing and cosmesis. A cadaveric split-thickness skin graft (STSG) consisting of biologically active tissue can be used to expedite granulation.²

Technique

Following tumor clearance on the scalp (Figure 1), wide undermining is performed and 3-0 polyglactin 910 epidermal pulley sutures are placed to partially close the defect. A cadaveric STSG is placed over the remaining exposed periosteum and secured under the pulley sutures (Figure 2). The cadaveric STSG is replaced at 1-week intervals. At 4 weeks, sutures typically are removed. The cadaveric STSG is used until the exposed periosteum is fully granulated and the surgeon decides that granulation arrest is unlikely. The wound then heals by unassisted granulation. This approach provides an excellent final cosmetic outcome while avoiding extensive reconstruction (Figure 3).

Practice Implications

Scalp defects requiring closure are common for dermatologic surgeons. Several techniques to promote tissue granulation in defects that involve exposed periosteum have been reported, including (1) creation of small holes with a scalpel or chisel to access cortical circulation and (2) using laser modalities to stimulate granulation (eg, an erbium:YAG or CO₂ laser).^3,4 Although direct comparative studies are needed, the cadaveric STSG provides an approach that increases tissue granulation but does not require more invasive techniques or equipment.

Autologous STSGs need a wound bed and can fail with an exposed periosteum. Furthermore, an autologous STSG that survives may leave an unsightly, hypopigmented, depressed defect. When a defect involves the periosteum and a primary closure or flap is not ideal, a skin substitute may be an option.

Skin substitutes, including cadaveric STSG, generally are classified as bioengineered skin equivalents, amniotic tissue, or cadaveric bioproducts (Table). Unlike autologous grafts, these skin substitutes can provide rapid coverage of the defect and do not require a highly vascularized wound bed.⁶ They also minimize the inflammatory response and potentially improve the final cosmetic outcome by improving granulation rather than immediate STSG closure creating a step-off in deep wounds.⁶

Cadaveric STSGs also have been used in nonhealing ulcerations; diabetic foot ulcers; and ulcerations in which muscle, tendon, or bone are exposed, demonstrating induction of wound healing with superior scar quality and skin function.^2,7,8 The utility of the cadaveric STSG is further highlighted by its potential to reduce costs⁹ compared to bioengineered skin substitutes, though considerable variability exists in pricing (Table).

Consider using a cadaveric STSG with a guiding closure in cases in which there is concern for delayed or absent tissue granulation or when monitoring for recurrence is essential.

Practice Gap

Scalp defects that extend to or below the periosteum often pose a reconstructive conundrum. Secondary-intention healing is challenging without an intact periosteum, and complex rotational flaps are required in these scenarios.¹ For a tumor that is at high risk for recurrence or when adjuvant therapy is necessary, tissue distortion of flaps can make monitoring for recurrence difficult. Similarly, for patients in poor health or who are elderly and have substantial skin atrophy, extensive closure may be undesirable or more technically challenging with a higher risk for adverse events. In these scenarios, additional strategies are necessary to optimize wound healing and cosmesis. A cadaveric split-thickness skin graft (STSG) consisting of biologically active tissue can be used to expedite granulation.²

Technique

Following tumor clearance on the scalp (Figure 1), wide undermining is performed and 3-0 polyglactin 910 epidermal pulley sutures are placed to partially close the defect. A cadaveric STSG is placed over the remaining exposed periosteum and secured under the pulley sutures (Figure 2). The cadaveric STSG is replaced at 1-week intervals. At 4 weeks, sutures typically are removed. The cadaveric STSG is used until the exposed periosteum is fully granulated and the surgeon decides that granulation arrest is unlikely. The wound then heals by unassisted granulation. This approach provides an excellent final cosmetic outcome while avoiding extensive reconstruction (Figure 3).

Practice Implications

Scalp defects requiring closure are common for dermatologic surgeons. Several techniques to promote tissue granulation in defects that involve exposed periosteum have been reported, including (1) creation of small holes with a scalpel or chisel to access cortical circulation and (2) using laser modalities to stimulate granulation (eg, an erbium:YAG or CO₂ laser).^3,4 Although direct comparative studies are needed, the cadaveric STSG provides an approach that increases tissue granulation but does not require more invasive techniques or equipment.

Autologous STSGs need a wound bed and can fail with an exposed periosteum. Furthermore, an autologous STSG that survives may leave an unsightly, hypopigmented, depressed defect. When a defect involves the periosteum and a primary closure or flap is not ideal, a skin substitute may be an option.

Skin substitutes, including cadaveric STSG, generally are classified as bioengineered skin equivalents, amniotic tissue, or cadaveric bioproducts (Table). Unlike autologous grafts, these skin substitutes can provide rapid coverage of the defect and do not require a highly vascularized wound bed.⁶ They also minimize the inflammatory response and potentially improve the final cosmetic outcome by improving granulation rather than immediate STSG closure creating a step-off in deep wounds.⁶

Cadaveric STSGs also have been used in nonhealing ulcerations; diabetic foot ulcers; and ulcerations in which muscle, tendon, or bone are exposed, demonstrating induction of wound healing with superior scar quality and skin function.^2,7,8 The utility of the cadaveric STSG is further highlighted by its potential to reduce costs⁹ compared to bioengineered skin substitutes, though considerable variability exists in pricing (Table).

Consider using a cadaveric STSG with a guiding closure in cases in which there is concern for delayed or absent tissue granulation or when monitoring for recurrence is essential.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The Diagnosis: Congenital Cutaneous Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis

Although the infectious workup was positive for herpes simplex virus type 1 and cytomegalovirus antibodies, serologies for the rest of the TORCH (toxoplasmosis, other agents [syphilis, hepatitis B virus], rubella, cytomegalovirus) group of infections, as well as other bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, were negative. A skin biopsy from the right fifth toe showed a dense infiltrate of CD1a+ histiocytic cells with folded or kidney-shaped nuclei mixed with eosinophils, which was consistent with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) (Figure 1). Skin lesions were treated with hydrocortisone cream 2.5% and progressively faded over a few weeks.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a rare disorder with a variable clinical presentation depending on the sites affected and the extent of involvement. It can involve multiple organ systems, most commonly the skeletal system and the skin. Organ involvement is characterized by histiocyte infiltration. Acute disseminated multisystem disease most commonly is seen in children younger than 3 years.¹

Congenital cutaneous LCH presents with variable skin lesions ranging from papules to vesicles, pustules, and ulcers, with onset at birth or in the neonatal period. Various morphologic traits of skin lesions have been described; the most common presentation is multiple red to yellow-brown, crusted papules with accompanying hemorrhage or erosion.¹ Other cases have described an eczematous, seborrheic, diffuse eruption or erosive intertrigo. One case of a child with a solitary necrotic nodule on the scalp has been reported.²

Our patient presented with disseminated, nonblanching, purple to dark red papules and nodules of the skin and oral mucosa, as well as nail dystrophy (Figure 2). However, LCH in a neonate can mimic other causes of congenital papulonodular eruptions. Red-brown papules and nodules with or without crusting in a newborn can be mistaken for erythema toxicum neonatorum, transient neonatal pustular melanosis, congenital leukemia cutis, neonatal erythropoiesis, disseminated neonatal hemangiomatosis, infantile acropustulosis, or congenital TORCH infections such as rubella or syphilis. When LCH presents as vesicles or eroded papules or nodules in a newborn, the differential diagnosis includes incontinentia pigmenti and hereditary epidermolysis bullosa.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis may even present with a classic blueberry muffin rash that can lead clinicians to consider cutaneous metastasis from various hematologic malignancies or the more common TORCH infections. Several diagnostic tests can be performed to clarify the diagnosis, including bacterial and viral cultures and stains, serology, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, bone marrow aspiration, or skin biopsy.³ Langerhans cell histiocytosis is diagnosed with a combination of histology, immunohistochemistry, and clinical presentation; however, a skin biopsy is crucial. Tissue should be taken from the most easily accessible yet representative lesion. The characteristic appearance of LCH lesions is described as a dense infiltrate of histiocytic cells mixed with numerous eosinophils in the dermis.¹ Histiocytes usually have folded nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm or kidney-shaped nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Positive CD1a and/or CD207 (Langerin) staining of the cells is required for definitive diagnosis.⁴ After diagnosis, it is important to obtain baseline laboratory and radiographic studies to determine the extent of systemic involvement.

Treatment of congenital LCH is tailored to the extent of organ involvement. The dermatologic manifestations resolve without medications in many cases. However, true self-resolving LCH can only be diagnosed retrospectively after a full evaluation for other sites of disease. Disseminated disease can be life-threatening and requires more active management. In cases of skin-limited disease, therapies include topical steroids, nitrogen mustard, or imiquimod; surgical resection of isolated lesions; phototherapy; or systemic therapies such as methotrexate, 6-mercaptopurine, vinblastine/vincristine, cladribine, and/or cytarabine. Symptomatic patients initially are treated with methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine.⁵ Asymptomatic infants with skin-limited involvement can be managed with topical treatments.

Our patient had skin-limited disease. Abdominal ultrasonography, skeletal survey, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed no abnormalities. The patient’s family was advised to monitor him for reoccurrence of the skin lesions and to continue close follow-up with hematology and dermatology. Although congenital LCH often is self-resolving, extensive skin involvement increases the risk for internal organ involvement for several years.⁶ These patients require long-term follow-up for potential musculoskeletal, ophthalmologic, endocrine, hepatic, and/or pulmonary disease.

The Diagnosis: Congenital Cutaneous Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis

Although the infectious workup was positive for herpes simplex virus type 1 and cytomegalovirus antibodies, serologies for the rest of the TORCH (toxoplasmosis, other agents [syphilis, hepatitis B virus], rubella, cytomegalovirus) group of infections, as well as other bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, were negative. A skin biopsy from the right fifth toe showed a dense infiltrate of CD1a+ histiocytic cells with folded or kidney-shaped nuclei mixed with eosinophils, which was consistent with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) (Figure 1). Skin lesions were treated with hydrocortisone cream 2.5% and progressively faded over a few weeks.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a rare disorder with a variable clinical presentation depending on the sites affected and the extent of involvement. It can involve multiple organ systems, most commonly the skeletal system and the skin. Organ involvement is characterized by histiocyte infiltration. Acute disseminated multisystem disease most commonly is seen in children younger than 3 years.¹

Congenital cutaneous LCH presents with variable skin lesions ranging from papules to vesicles, pustules, and ulcers, with onset at birth or in the neonatal period. Various morphologic traits of skin lesions have been described; the most common presentation is multiple red to yellow-brown, crusted papules with accompanying hemorrhage or erosion.¹ Other cases have described an eczematous, seborrheic, diffuse eruption or erosive intertrigo. One case of a child with a solitary necrotic nodule on the scalp has been reported.²

Our patient presented with disseminated, nonblanching, purple to dark red papules and nodules of the skin and oral mucosa, as well as nail dystrophy (Figure 2). However, LCH in a neonate can mimic other causes of congenital papulonodular eruptions. Red-brown papules and nodules with or without crusting in a newborn can be mistaken for erythema toxicum neonatorum, transient neonatal pustular melanosis, congenital leukemia cutis, neonatal erythropoiesis, disseminated neonatal hemangiomatosis, infantile acropustulosis, or congenital TORCH infections such as rubella or syphilis. When LCH presents as vesicles or eroded papules or nodules in a newborn, the differential diagnosis includes incontinentia pigmenti and hereditary epidermolysis bullosa.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis may even present with a classic blueberry muffin rash that can lead clinicians to consider cutaneous metastasis from various hematologic malignancies or the more common TORCH infections. Several diagnostic tests can be performed to clarify the diagnosis, including bacterial and viral cultures and stains, serology, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, bone marrow aspiration, or skin biopsy.³ Langerhans cell histiocytosis is diagnosed with a combination of histology, immunohistochemistry, and clinical presentation; however, a skin biopsy is crucial. Tissue should be taken from the most easily accessible yet representative lesion. The characteristic appearance of LCH lesions is described as a dense infiltrate of histiocytic cells mixed with numerous eosinophils in the dermis.¹ Histiocytes usually have folded nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm or kidney-shaped nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Positive CD1a and/or CD207 (Langerin) staining of the cells is required for definitive diagnosis.⁴ After diagnosis, it is important to obtain baseline laboratory and radiographic studies to determine the extent of systemic involvement.

Treatment of congenital LCH is tailored to the extent of organ involvement. The dermatologic manifestations resolve without medications in many cases. However, true self-resolving LCH can only be diagnosed retrospectively after a full evaluation for other sites of disease. Disseminated disease can be life-threatening and requires more active management. In cases of skin-limited disease, therapies include topical steroids, nitrogen mustard, or imiquimod; surgical resection of isolated lesions; phototherapy; or systemic therapies such as methotrexate, 6-mercaptopurine, vinblastine/vincristine, cladribine, and/or cytarabine. Symptomatic patients initially are treated with methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine.⁵ Asymptomatic infants with skin-limited involvement can be managed with topical treatments.

Our patient had skin-limited disease. Abdominal ultrasonography, skeletal survey, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed no abnormalities. The patient’s family was advised to monitor him for reoccurrence of the skin lesions and to continue close follow-up with hematology and dermatology. Although congenital LCH often is self-resolving, extensive skin involvement increases the risk for internal organ involvement for several years.⁶ These patients require long-term follow-up for potential musculoskeletal, ophthalmologic, endocrine, hepatic, and/or pulmonary disease.

The Diagnosis: Congenital Cutaneous Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis

Although the infectious workup was positive for herpes simplex virus type 1 and cytomegalovirus antibodies, serologies for the rest of the TORCH (toxoplasmosis, other agents [syphilis, hepatitis B virus], rubella, cytomegalovirus) group of infections, as well as other bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, were negative. A skin biopsy from the right fifth toe showed a dense infiltrate of CD1a+ histiocytic cells with folded or kidney-shaped nuclei mixed with eosinophils, which was consistent with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) (Figure 1). Skin lesions were treated with hydrocortisone cream 2.5% and progressively faded over a few weeks.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a rare disorder with a variable clinical presentation depending on the sites affected and the extent of involvement. It can involve multiple organ systems, most commonly the skeletal system and the skin. Organ involvement is characterized by histiocyte infiltration. Acute disseminated multisystem disease most commonly is seen in children younger than 3 years.¹

Congenital cutaneous LCH presents with variable skin lesions ranging from papules to vesicles, pustules, and ulcers, with onset at birth or in the neonatal period. Various morphologic traits of skin lesions have been described; the most common presentation is multiple red to yellow-brown, crusted papules with accompanying hemorrhage or erosion.¹ Other cases have described an eczematous, seborrheic, diffuse eruption or erosive intertrigo. One case of a child with a solitary necrotic nodule on the scalp has been reported.²

Our patient presented with disseminated, nonblanching, purple to dark red papules and nodules of the skin and oral mucosa, as well as nail dystrophy (Figure 2). However, LCH in a neonate can mimic other causes of congenital papulonodular eruptions. Red-brown papules and nodules with or without crusting in a newborn can be mistaken for erythema toxicum neonatorum, transient neonatal pustular melanosis, congenital leukemia cutis, neonatal erythropoiesis, disseminated neonatal hemangiomatosis, infantile acropustulosis, or congenital TORCH infections such as rubella or syphilis. When LCH presents as vesicles or eroded papules or nodules in a newborn, the differential diagnosis includes incontinentia pigmenti and hereditary epidermolysis bullosa.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis may even present with a classic blueberry muffin rash that can lead clinicians to consider cutaneous metastasis from various hematologic malignancies or the more common TORCH infections. Several diagnostic tests can be performed to clarify the diagnosis, including bacterial and viral cultures and stains, serology, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, bone marrow aspiration, or skin biopsy.³ Langerhans cell histiocytosis is diagnosed with a combination of histology, immunohistochemistry, and clinical presentation; however, a skin biopsy is crucial. Tissue should be taken from the most easily accessible yet representative lesion. The characteristic appearance of LCH lesions is described as a dense infiltrate of histiocytic cells mixed with numerous eosinophils in the dermis.¹ Histiocytes usually have folded nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm or kidney-shaped nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Positive CD1a and/or CD207 (Langerin) staining of the cells is required for definitive diagnosis.⁴ After diagnosis, it is important to obtain baseline laboratory and radiographic studies to determine the extent of systemic involvement.

Treatment of congenital LCH is tailored to the extent of organ involvement. The dermatologic manifestations resolve without medications in many cases. However, true self-resolving LCH can only be diagnosed retrospectively after a full evaluation for other sites of disease. Disseminated disease can be life-threatening and requires more active management. In cases of skin-limited disease, therapies include topical steroids, nitrogen mustard, or imiquimod; surgical resection of isolated lesions; phototherapy; or systemic therapies such as methotrexate, 6-mercaptopurine, vinblastine/vincristine, cladribine, and/or cytarabine. Symptomatic patients initially are treated with methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine.⁵ Asymptomatic infants with skin-limited involvement can be managed with topical treatments.

Our patient had skin-limited disease. Abdominal ultrasonography, skeletal survey, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed no abnormalities. The patient’s family was advised to monitor him for reoccurrence of the skin lesions and to continue close follow-up with hematology and dermatology. Although congenital LCH often is self-resolving, extensive skin involvement increases the risk for internal organ involvement for several years.⁶ These patients require long-term follow-up for potential musculoskeletal, ophthalmologic, endocrine, hepatic, and/or pulmonary disease.

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from a meta-analysis of 65 studies conducted in 35 countries indicate that nearly a third of men older than 15 years are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), and one in five are carriers of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV). These estimates provide further weight to arguments in favor of vaccinating boys against HPV to prevent certain types of cancer.

“Our results support that sexually active men, regardless of age, are an important reservoir of HPV genital infection,” wrote the authors in The Lancet Global Health . “These estimates emphasize the importance of incorporating men into comprehensive HPV prevention strategies to reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality in men and ultimately achieve elimination of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases.”
 

Literature review

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted viral infection worldwide. More than 200 HPV types can be transmitted sexually, and at least 12 types are oncogenic. Previous studies have shown that most sexually active men and women acquire at least one genital HPV infection during their lifetime.

Although most HPV infections are asymptomatic, they can lead to cancer. Indeed, HPV is involved in the development of cervical, vulval, and vaginal cancers, as well as oropharyngeal and anal cancers, which also affect the male population. More than 25% of cancers caused by HPV occur in men.

Despite these observations, fewer epidemiologic studies have assessed HPV infection in men than in women. To determine the prevalence of HPV infection in the male population, Laia Bruni, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and her colleagues collated data from 65 studies conducted in 35 countries pertaining to males older than 15 years.

In this literature review, the researchers selected studies that reported infection rates in males without HPV-related symptoms. Studies conducted exclusively in populations that were considered at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were excluded. Overall, the analysis included close to 45,000 men.
 

Prevalent HPV genotype

Testing for HPV was conducted on samples collected from the anus and genitals. The results show a global pooled prevalence of HPV infection in males older than 15 years of 31% for any HPV and 21% for HR-HPV. One of these viruses, HPV-16, was the most prevalent HPV genotype (5% prevalence).

HPV prevalence was highest among young adults. It stabilized and decreased from age 50 years. Between ages 25 and 29 years, 35% of men are infected with HPV. It should be noted that prevalence is already high in the youngest group, reaching 28% in males between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The variations are similar for HR-HPV infections.

This age-related change is different from rates in women. Among the female population, HPV prevalence peaks soon after first sexual activity and declines with age, with a slight rebound after ages 50–55 years (i.e., often after or around the time of menopause), wrote the researchers.

The results also show country- and region-based disparities. The pooled prevalence for any HPV was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), followed by Europe and Northern America (36%). The lowest prevalence was in East and Southeast Asia (15%). Here again, the trends are similar with high-risk HPV.
 

Preventive measures

“Our study draws attention to the high prevalence, ranging from 20% to 30% for HR-HPV in men across most regions, and the need for strengthening HPV prevention within overall STI control efforts,” wrote the authors.

“Future epidemiological studies are needed to monitor trends in prevalence in men, especially considering the roll-out of HPV vaccination in girls and young women and that many countries are beginning to vaccinate boys.”

In France, the HPV vaccination program was extended in 2021 to include all boys between the ages of 11 and 14 years (two-dose schedule), with a catch-up course in males up to age 19 years (three-dose schedule). This is the same vaccine program as for girls. It is also recommended for men up to age 26 years who have sex with other men.

The 2023 return to school will see the launch of a general vaccination campaign aimed at seventh-grade students, both boys and girls, with parental consent, to increase vaccine coverage. In 2021, vaccine uptake was 43.6% in girls between the ages of 15 and 18 years and scarcely 6% in boys, according to Public Health France.

Two vaccines are in use: the bivalent Cervarix vaccine, which is effective against HPV-16 and HPV-18, and the nonavalent Gardasil 9, which is effective against types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both provide protection against HPV-16, the type most common in men, which is responsible for more than half of cases of cervical cancer.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from a meta-analysis of 65 studies conducted in 35 countries indicate that nearly a third of men older than 15 years are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), and one in five are carriers of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV). These estimates provide further weight to arguments in favor of vaccinating boys against HPV to prevent certain types of cancer.

“Our results support that sexually active men, regardless of age, are an important reservoir of HPV genital infection,” wrote the authors in The Lancet Global Health . “These estimates emphasize the importance of incorporating men into comprehensive HPV prevention strategies to reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality in men and ultimately achieve elimination of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases.”
 

Literature review

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted viral infection worldwide. More than 200 HPV types can be transmitted sexually, and at least 12 types are oncogenic. Previous studies have shown that most sexually active men and women acquire at least one genital HPV infection during their lifetime.

Although most HPV infections are asymptomatic, they can lead to cancer. Indeed, HPV is involved in the development of cervical, vulval, and vaginal cancers, as well as oropharyngeal and anal cancers, which also affect the male population. More than 25% of cancers caused by HPV occur in men.

Despite these observations, fewer epidemiologic studies have assessed HPV infection in men than in women. To determine the prevalence of HPV infection in the male population, Laia Bruni, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and her colleagues collated data from 65 studies conducted in 35 countries pertaining to males older than 15 years.

In this literature review, the researchers selected studies that reported infection rates in males without HPV-related symptoms. Studies conducted exclusively in populations that were considered at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were excluded. Overall, the analysis included close to 45,000 men.
 

Prevalent HPV genotype

Testing for HPV was conducted on samples collected from the anus and genitals. The results show a global pooled prevalence of HPV infection in males older than 15 years of 31% for any HPV and 21% for HR-HPV. One of these viruses, HPV-16, was the most prevalent HPV genotype (5% prevalence).

HPV prevalence was highest among young adults. It stabilized and decreased from age 50 years. Between ages 25 and 29 years, 35% of men are infected with HPV. It should be noted that prevalence is already high in the youngest group, reaching 28% in males between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The variations are similar for HR-HPV infections.

This age-related change is different from rates in women. Among the female population, HPV prevalence peaks soon after first sexual activity and declines with age, with a slight rebound after ages 50–55 years (i.e., often after or around the time of menopause), wrote the researchers.

The results also show country- and region-based disparities. The pooled prevalence for any HPV was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), followed by Europe and Northern America (36%). The lowest prevalence was in East and Southeast Asia (15%). Here again, the trends are similar with high-risk HPV.
 

Preventive measures

“Our study draws attention to the high prevalence, ranging from 20% to 30% for HR-HPV in men across most regions, and the need for strengthening HPV prevention within overall STI control efforts,” wrote the authors.

“Future epidemiological studies are needed to monitor trends in prevalence in men, especially considering the roll-out of HPV vaccination in girls and young women and that many countries are beginning to vaccinate boys.”

In France, the HPV vaccination program was extended in 2021 to include all boys between the ages of 11 and 14 years (two-dose schedule), with a catch-up course in males up to age 19 years (three-dose schedule). This is the same vaccine program as for girls. It is also recommended for men up to age 26 years who have sex with other men.

The 2023 return to school will see the launch of a general vaccination campaign aimed at seventh-grade students, both boys and girls, with parental consent, to increase vaccine coverage. In 2021, vaccine uptake was 43.6% in girls between the ages of 15 and 18 years and scarcely 6% in boys, according to Public Health France.

Two vaccines are in use: the bivalent Cervarix vaccine, which is effective against HPV-16 and HPV-18, and the nonavalent Gardasil 9, which is effective against types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both provide protection against HPV-16, the type most common in men, which is responsible for more than half of cases of cervical cancer.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from a meta-analysis of 65 studies conducted in 35 countries indicate that nearly a third of men older than 15 years are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), and one in five are carriers of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV). These estimates provide further weight to arguments in favor of vaccinating boys against HPV to prevent certain types of cancer.

“Our results support that sexually active men, regardless of age, are an important reservoir of HPV genital infection,” wrote the authors in The Lancet Global Health . “These estimates emphasize the importance of incorporating men into comprehensive HPV prevention strategies to reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality in men and ultimately achieve elimination of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases.”
 

Literature review

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted viral infection worldwide. More than 200 HPV types can be transmitted sexually, and at least 12 types are oncogenic. Previous studies have shown that most sexually active men and women acquire at least one genital HPV infection during their lifetime.

Although most HPV infections are asymptomatic, they can lead to cancer. Indeed, HPV is involved in the development of cervical, vulval, and vaginal cancers, as well as oropharyngeal and anal cancers, which also affect the male population. More than 25% of cancers caused by HPV occur in men.

Despite these observations, fewer epidemiologic studies have assessed HPV infection in men than in women. To determine the prevalence of HPV infection in the male population, Laia Bruni, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and her colleagues collated data from 65 studies conducted in 35 countries pertaining to males older than 15 years.

In this literature review, the researchers selected studies that reported infection rates in males without HPV-related symptoms. Studies conducted exclusively in populations that were considered at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were excluded. Overall, the analysis included close to 45,000 men.
 

Prevalent HPV genotype

Testing for HPV was conducted on samples collected from the anus and genitals. The results show a global pooled prevalence of HPV infection in males older than 15 years of 31% for any HPV and 21% for HR-HPV. One of these viruses, HPV-16, was the most prevalent HPV genotype (5% prevalence).

HPV prevalence was highest among young adults. It stabilized and decreased from age 50 years. Between ages 25 and 29 years, 35% of men are infected with HPV. It should be noted that prevalence is already high in the youngest group, reaching 28% in males between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The variations are similar for HR-HPV infections.

This age-related change is different from rates in women. Among the female population, HPV prevalence peaks soon after first sexual activity and declines with age, with a slight rebound after ages 50–55 years (i.e., often after or around the time of menopause), wrote the researchers.

The results also show country- and region-based disparities. The pooled prevalence for any HPV was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), followed by Europe and Northern America (36%). The lowest prevalence was in East and Southeast Asia (15%). Here again, the trends are similar with high-risk HPV.
 

Preventive measures

“Our study draws attention to the high prevalence, ranging from 20% to 30% for HR-HPV in men across most regions, and the need for strengthening HPV prevention within overall STI control efforts,” wrote the authors.

“Future epidemiological studies are needed to monitor trends in prevalence in men, especially considering the roll-out of HPV vaccination in girls and young women and that many countries are beginning to vaccinate boys.”

In France, the HPV vaccination program was extended in 2021 to include all boys between the ages of 11 and 14 years (two-dose schedule), with a catch-up course in males up to age 19 years (three-dose schedule). This is the same vaccine program as for girls. It is also recommended for men up to age 26 years who have sex with other men.

The 2023 return to school will see the launch of a general vaccination campaign aimed at seventh-grade students, both boys and girls, with parental consent, to increase vaccine coverage. In 2021, vaccine uptake was 43.6% in girls between the ages of 15 and 18 years and scarcely 6% in boys, according to Public Health France.

Two vaccines are in use: the bivalent Cervarix vaccine, which is effective against HPV-16 and HPV-18, and the nonavalent Gardasil 9, which is effective against types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both provide protection against HPV-16, the type most common in men, which is responsible for more than half of cases of cervical cancer.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.