MDedge Dermatology

SINGAPORE – Three oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – have demonstrated a good treatment response in Asian patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), a small retrospective study conducted in Singapore has found.

“Abrocitinib and upadacitinib surprisingly appeared to have better treatment efficacy compared to baricitinib,” said study lead Yik Weng Yew, MD, PhD, MPH, deputy head of research at Singapore’s National Skin Centre (NSC), who presented the results at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology. “But overall, as a group, I think they show a very good treatment response, as well as a good effect on itch response.”

Sandy Ong

JAK inhibitors are used to treat a variety of inflammatory diseases including alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Although treatment for severe eczema was previously limited to topical steroids and oral immunosuppressants, there are now two oral JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib and upadacitinib – approved in 2022 by the Food and Drug Administration for treating AD, which affects up to 2.4% of the global population. (A topical formulation of ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was approved for AD in 2021.)

The Singapore study is one of the few that have examined the safety and efficacy of JAK inhibitors for treatment of AD in a non-White population.
 

Chinese population

For the 12-week trial, conducted in 2022, Dr. Yew and associates recruited 35 patients from the NSC. More than half of participants (64%) were men and most (96%) were of Chinese ethnicity. Four of every five patients had previously received systemic agents: 17% had been treated with one systemic agent, 18.9% with two, 15.1% with three, 22.6% with four, and 3.8% with five. The most commonly used agents were cyclosporine (62.3%), methotrexate (47.2%), azathioprine (39.6%), and dupilumab (35.8%).  

“The switch in therapy could have been a result of inadequate efficacy or cost reasons because in Singapore patients pay out of pocket for AD treatments,” said Dr. Yew.

Additionally, he offered a caveat on the profile of participants: “Perhaps they were more difficult atopic eczema patients, and therefore, the efficacy [of JAK inhibitors] might be a bit different.”
 

Clearer skin, less itch

Patients received one of the three study drugs: baricitinib (66%), abrocitinib (21%), and upadacitinib (13%). The distribution was “affected by reimbursement patterns and availability of the drug,” explained Dr. Yew.

They were assessed at weeks 4 and 12. By study end, the proportion of patients who self-reported an improvement in their condition was 100% for upadacitinib, 90% for abrocitinib, and 69% for baricitinib. 

Scores on the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) also improved with treatment. Patients in the baricitinib group saw their mean score fall from 4.0 to 3.0 by week 4, then to 2.0 by week 12. With upadacitinib and abrocitinib, “you can see that there is a nice decrease in IGA responses,” said Dr. Yew, referring to the larger improvement in scores experienced by patients on those two treatments. For patients on upadacitinib, IGA decreased from 3.5 to 2 at 4 weeks, then to 0.5 at 12 weeks, while those taking abrocitinib had their scores drop from 4.0 to 2.0 at 4 weeks, then to 1.0 at 12 weeks.

When it came to itch reduction, the abrocitinib group experienced the biggest reduction, with a median reduction of 5.5 points in itch score. Median reduction in itch score was 4 points for the other two groups. “Oral JAK inhibitors appear to have a good effect on itch response,” said Dr. Yew.

However, the researchers observed no significant reduction in percentage of body surface area affected, the last outcome assessed.

The most commonly reported adverse events were increased creatine kinase levels (11.3% of patients), increased LDL cholesterol levels (9.4%), and herpes zoster (9.4%). Those in the abrocitinib reported a higher number of these adverse events, compared with the other two treatment groups. (There were no herpes zoster cases among those taking baricitinib.)

For herpes zoster, Dr. Yew said “the common recommendation” is to give the inactivated shingles vaccine. “But the problem is that, number one, these patients would have probably failed multiple agents so they probably can’t wait for you to vaccinate before you initiate treatment.”

In addition, people in Singapore have to pay out-of-pocket for the two vaccine doses, “which is probably a month’s worth of medication,” he noted. “So we have a lot of resistance from patients.”

Additionally, Dr. Yew noted that contrary to what has previously been reported in the literature, there were few complaints of acne as a side effect in the Singaporean study population.
 

Toward greater representation

Dr. Yew pointed out that the study was limited by a few factors: neither the Eczema Area and Severity Index or Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis index data was used, and the study population was small and not representative of the real world.

Still, the new findings contribute to the overall safety and efficacy profile of JAK inhibitors in AD, which has so far been scarce in non-White populations.

“In Western studies, unfortunately, the representation of the population of skin of color or different ethnicities is underrepresented,” said Yousef Binamer, MD, chair of the dermatology department at King Faisal Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, when approached for an independent comment on the results.

“This is now why researchers are looking into specific groups to study them,” which he pointed out, is crucial because “the immunophenotyping of AD is different for each background.”

The incidence and severity of AD tend to be higher in Asian and Middle Eastern populations, for instance, he noted. “It’s very common in Asia, and not so common in very white skin. I did my training in Canada so I see the difference,” said Dr. Binamer. “Asian people tend to be more itchy and have a tendency to scar on pigmentation.” Whereas White people “usually do not have this issue.” 

“So I think real-world evidence of JAK inhibitors in the other populations is important,” he said. Studies such as the one conducted in Singapore, as well as the recently reported QUARTZ3 study, which examined the use of the JAK inhibitor ivarmacitinib in 256 Chinese patients with AD, are helping to pave the way.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Yew and Dr. Binamer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SINGAPORE – Three oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – have demonstrated a good treatment response in Asian patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), a small retrospective study conducted in Singapore has found.

“Abrocitinib and upadacitinib surprisingly appeared to have better treatment efficacy compared to baricitinib,” said study lead Yik Weng Yew, MD, PhD, MPH, deputy head of research at Singapore’s National Skin Centre (NSC), who presented the results at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology. “But overall, as a group, I think they show a very good treatment response, as well as a good effect on itch response.”

Sandy Ong

JAK inhibitors are used to treat a variety of inflammatory diseases including alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Although treatment for severe eczema was previously limited to topical steroids and oral immunosuppressants, there are now two oral JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib and upadacitinib – approved in 2022 by the Food and Drug Administration for treating AD, which affects up to 2.4% of the global population. (A topical formulation of ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was approved for AD in 2021.)

The Singapore study is one of the few that have examined the safety and efficacy of JAK inhibitors for treatment of AD in a non-White population.
 

Chinese population

For the 12-week trial, conducted in 2022, Dr. Yew and associates recruited 35 patients from the NSC. More than half of participants (64%) were men and most (96%) were of Chinese ethnicity. Four of every five patients had previously received systemic agents: 17% had been treated with one systemic agent, 18.9% with two, 15.1% with three, 22.6% with four, and 3.8% with five. The most commonly used agents were cyclosporine (62.3%), methotrexate (47.2%), azathioprine (39.6%), and dupilumab (35.8%).  

“The switch in therapy could have been a result of inadequate efficacy or cost reasons because in Singapore patients pay out of pocket for AD treatments,” said Dr. Yew.

Additionally, he offered a caveat on the profile of participants: “Perhaps they were more difficult atopic eczema patients, and therefore, the efficacy [of JAK inhibitors] might be a bit different.”
 

Clearer skin, less itch

Patients received one of the three study drugs: baricitinib (66%), abrocitinib (21%), and upadacitinib (13%). The distribution was “affected by reimbursement patterns and availability of the drug,” explained Dr. Yew.

They were assessed at weeks 4 and 12. By study end, the proportion of patients who self-reported an improvement in their condition was 100% for upadacitinib, 90% for abrocitinib, and 69% for baricitinib. 

Scores on the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) also improved with treatment. Patients in the baricitinib group saw their mean score fall from 4.0 to 3.0 by week 4, then to 2.0 by week 12. With upadacitinib and abrocitinib, “you can see that there is a nice decrease in IGA responses,” said Dr. Yew, referring to the larger improvement in scores experienced by patients on those two treatments. For patients on upadacitinib, IGA decreased from 3.5 to 2 at 4 weeks, then to 0.5 at 12 weeks, while those taking abrocitinib had their scores drop from 4.0 to 2.0 at 4 weeks, then to 1.0 at 12 weeks.

When it came to itch reduction, the abrocitinib group experienced the biggest reduction, with a median reduction of 5.5 points in itch score. Median reduction in itch score was 4 points for the other two groups. “Oral JAK inhibitors appear to have a good effect on itch response,” said Dr. Yew.

However, the researchers observed no significant reduction in percentage of body surface area affected, the last outcome assessed.

The most commonly reported adverse events were increased creatine kinase levels (11.3% of patients), increased LDL cholesterol levels (9.4%), and herpes zoster (9.4%). Those in the abrocitinib reported a higher number of these adverse events, compared with the other two treatment groups. (There were no herpes zoster cases among those taking baricitinib.)

For herpes zoster, Dr. Yew said “the common recommendation” is to give the inactivated shingles vaccine. “But the problem is that, number one, these patients would have probably failed multiple agents so they probably can’t wait for you to vaccinate before you initiate treatment.”

In addition, people in Singapore have to pay out-of-pocket for the two vaccine doses, “which is probably a month’s worth of medication,” he noted. “So we have a lot of resistance from patients.”

Additionally, Dr. Yew noted that contrary to what has previously been reported in the literature, there were few complaints of acne as a side effect in the Singaporean study population.
 

Toward greater representation

Dr. Yew pointed out that the study was limited by a few factors: neither the Eczema Area and Severity Index or Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis index data was used, and the study population was small and not representative of the real world.

Still, the new findings contribute to the overall safety and efficacy profile of JAK inhibitors in AD, which has so far been scarce in non-White populations.

“In Western studies, unfortunately, the representation of the population of skin of color or different ethnicities is underrepresented,” said Yousef Binamer, MD, chair of the dermatology department at King Faisal Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, when approached for an independent comment on the results.

“This is now why researchers are looking into specific groups to study them,” which he pointed out, is crucial because “the immunophenotyping of AD is different for each background.”

The incidence and severity of AD tend to be higher in Asian and Middle Eastern populations, for instance, he noted. “It’s very common in Asia, and not so common in very white skin. I did my training in Canada so I see the difference,” said Dr. Binamer. “Asian people tend to be more itchy and have a tendency to scar on pigmentation.” Whereas White people “usually do not have this issue.” 

“So I think real-world evidence of JAK inhibitors in the other populations is important,” he said. Studies such as the one conducted in Singapore, as well as the recently reported QUARTZ3 study, which examined the use of the JAK inhibitor ivarmacitinib in 256 Chinese patients with AD, are helping to pave the way.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Yew and Dr. Binamer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SINGAPORE – Three oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – have demonstrated a good treatment response in Asian patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), a small retrospective study conducted in Singapore has found.

“Abrocitinib and upadacitinib surprisingly appeared to have better treatment efficacy compared to baricitinib,” said study lead Yik Weng Yew, MD, PhD, MPH, deputy head of research at Singapore’s National Skin Centre (NSC), who presented the results at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology. “But overall, as a group, I think they show a very good treatment response, as well as a good effect on itch response.”

Sandy Ong

JAK inhibitors are used to treat a variety of inflammatory diseases including alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Although treatment for severe eczema was previously limited to topical steroids and oral immunosuppressants, there are now two oral JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib and upadacitinib – approved in 2022 by the Food and Drug Administration for treating AD, which affects up to 2.4% of the global population. (A topical formulation of ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was approved for AD in 2021.)

The Singapore study is one of the few that have examined the safety and efficacy of JAK inhibitors for treatment of AD in a non-White population.
 

Chinese population

For the 12-week trial, conducted in 2022, Dr. Yew and associates recruited 35 patients from the NSC. More than half of participants (64%) were men and most (96%) were of Chinese ethnicity. Four of every five patients had previously received systemic agents: 17% had been treated with one systemic agent, 18.9% with two, 15.1% with three, 22.6% with four, and 3.8% with five. The most commonly used agents were cyclosporine (62.3%), methotrexate (47.2%), azathioprine (39.6%), and dupilumab (35.8%).  

“The switch in therapy could have been a result of inadequate efficacy or cost reasons because in Singapore patients pay out of pocket for AD treatments,” said Dr. Yew.

Additionally, he offered a caveat on the profile of participants: “Perhaps they were more difficult atopic eczema patients, and therefore, the efficacy [of JAK inhibitors] might be a bit different.”
 

Clearer skin, less itch

Patients received one of the three study drugs: baricitinib (66%), abrocitinib (21%), and upadacitinib (13%). The distribution was “affected by reimbursement patterns and availability of the drug,” explained Dr. Yew.

They were assessed at weeks 4 and 12. By study end, the proportion of patients who self-reported an improvement in their condition was 100% for upadacitinib, 90% for abrocitinib, and 69% for baricitinib. 

Scores on the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) also improved with treatment. Patients in the baricitinib group saw their mean score fall from 4.0 to 3.0 by week 4, then to 2.0 by week 12. With upadacitinib and abrocitinib, “you can see that there is a nice decrease in IGA responses,” said Dr. Yew, referring to the larger improvement in scores experienced by patients on those two treatments. For patients on upadacitinib, IGA decreased from 3.5 to 2 at 4 weeks, then to 0.5 at 12 weeks, while those taking abrocitinib had their scores drop from 4.0 to 2.0 at 4 weeks, then to 1.0 at 12 weeks.

When it came to itch reduction, the abrocitinib group experienced the biggest reduction, with a median reduction of 5.5 points in itch score. Median reduction in itch score was 4 points for the other two groups. “Oral JAK inhibitors appear to have a good effect on itch response,” said Dr. Yew.

However, the researchers observed no significant reduction in percentage of body surface area affected, the last outcome assessed.

The most commonly reported adverse events were increased creatine kinase levels (11.3% of patients), increased LDL cholesterol levels (9.4%), and herpes zoster (9.4%). Those in the abrocitinib reported a higher number of these adverse events, compared with the other two treatment groups. (There were no herpes zoster cases among those taking baricitinib.)

For herpes zoster, Dr. Yew said “the common recommendation” is to give the inactivated shingles vaccine. “But the problem is that, number one, these patients would have probably failed multiple agents so they probably can’t wait for you to vaccinate before you initiate treatment.”

In addition, people in Singapore have to pay out-of-pocket for the two vaccine doses, “which is probably a month’s worth of medication,” he noted. “So we have a lot of resistance from patients.”

Additionally, Dr. Yew noted that contrary to what has previously been reported in the literature, there were few complaints of acne as a side effect in the Singaporean study population.
 

Toward greater representation

Dr. Yew pointed out that the study was limited by a few factors: neither the Eczema Area and Severity Index or Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis index data was used, and the study population was small and not representative of the real world.

Still, the new findings contribute to the overall safety and efficacy profile of JAK inhibitors in AD, which has so far been scarce in non-White populations.

“In Western studies, unfortunately, the representation of the population of skin of color or different ethnicities is underrepresented,” said Yousef Binamer, MD, chair of the dermatology department at King Faisal Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, when approached for an independent comment on the results.

“This is now why researchers are looking into specific groups to study them,” which he pointed out, is crucial because “the immunophenotyping of AD is different for each background.”

The incidence and severity of AD tend to be higher in Asian and Middle Eastern populations, for instance, he noted. “It’s very common in Asia, and not so common in very white skin. I did my training in Canada so I see the difference,” said Dr. Binamer. “Asian people tend to be more itchy and have a tendency to scar on pigmentation.” Whereas White people “usually do not have this issue.” 

“So I think real-world evidence of JAK inhibitors in the other populations is important,” he said. Studies such as the one conducted in Singapore, as well as the recently reported QUARTZ3 study, which examined the use of the JAK inhibitor ivarmacitinib in 256 Chinese patients with AD, are helping to pave the way.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Yew and Dr. Binamer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SINGAPORE – When injected subcutaneously, the interleukin-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab significantly reduced the risk for generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) flares, according to results of a study presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,

In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”

GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.

“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.

The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.

The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Flare prevention

In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.

The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.

Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.

The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.

Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.

The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.

Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.

“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
 

Targeting the IL-36 pathway

In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”

“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.

However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.

He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”

Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

SINGAPORE – When injected subcutaneously, the interleukin-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab significantly reduced the risk for generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) flares, according to results of a study presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,

In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”

GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.

“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.

The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.

The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Flare prevention

In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.

The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.

Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.

The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.

Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.

The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.

Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.

“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
 

Targeting the IL-36 pathway

In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”

“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.

However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.

He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”

Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

SINGAPORE – When injected subcutaneously, the interleukin-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab significantly reduced the risk for generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) flares, according to results of a study presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,

In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”

GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.

“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.

The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.

The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Flare prevention

In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.

The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.

Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.

The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.

Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.

The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.

Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.

“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
 

Targeting the IL-36 pathway

In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”

“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.

However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.

He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”

Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Flares of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), particularly those involving severe kidney disease, were associated with growth spikes of the gut bacteria Ruminococcus blautia gnavus in a small, 4-year observational study that also demonstrated an underlying, inherent instability in the gut microbiome of patients with SLE.

Of 16 patients with SLE studied during the provision of routine care and monitoring, 5 had R. gnavus blooms that were “strikingly concordant with periods of raised disease activity,” Gregg J. Silverman, MD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, and coinvestigators reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Four of the five patients with flare-associated R. gnavus blooms had lupus nephritis (LN); the other had a flare involving inflammation in multiple joints. The four patients with concurrent LN and spikes in R. gnavus also represented almost half of patients who had LN disease flares (four of nine) during the study period. The nine patients in the study with renal involvement, and the four with concurrent R. gnavus spikes and flares, represented different races and ethnicities.

The findings build upon research published by the NYU group several years ago showing that patients with SLE had more R. gnavus in the gut than similar patients without the disease, and that flares closely tracked major increases in R. gnavus growth. Evidence of R. gnavus expansions in patients with SLE now comes from several cohorts in the United States as well as cohorts in Europe and China, the researchers noted in their new paper.
 

An underlying, unstable microbiome

The new study at NYU took a “deeper dive” than previous research, looking at individuals over a longer period of time, Dr. Silverman, the study’s senior investigator and associate director of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Blood and a total of 44 stool samples from the 16 patients were analyzed, as were a total of 72 stool samples from 22 healthy control volunteers.

Importantly, he said, the gut microbiome in patients with SLE was found to be inherently unstable over time, compared with the microbiota communities of the controls. “There was an instability, a shifting dynamic composition of the microbiome [in patients with lupus]. ... Healthy individuals had more of a balance, with small changes over time” and a stable, low abundance of R. gnavus, Dr. Silverman said.

Transient expansions of several pathogenic species occurred in some of the patients with lupus (and not in controls), but blooms of R. gnavus were the most common. The researchers said in their paper that they “speculate that susceptibility for specific clinical features during R. gnavus blooms reflect in part differences in genetic susceptibility of the patient.”

Patients on cytotoxic agents or antibiotics were excluded from the study, but the study was not designed to disentangle the potential influence of diet or prior antibiotic exposure, they noted. Larger studies are needed that are better controlled and that include more frequent assessments, Dr. Silverman added.
 

A sure association and probable cause

“There seems to be a special connection [of R. gnavus] to lupus nephritis, which is an important, major subset of disease,” said Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, chief or rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Munster (Germany). Dr. Kriegel also researches the gut microbiome in lupus and was asked to comment on the new findings from NYU.

The “difficult question is, is the bug driving the flare [as the NYU paper proposes], or is it the lupus nephritis that leads to overgrowth?” he said, noting that it “is well known that kidney disease, whether from lupus or other causes, creates disturbances in the microbiome.”

It’s “likely the case” that the pathobiome – with R. gnavus being an important pathobiont – helps to drive flares, he said. The new research shows only an association, but studies done in mice – including prior research by Dr. Silverman – support a mechanistic link, said Dr. Kriegel, also adjunct associate professor of immunobiology and of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Investigators in the microbiome space are moving toward more strain-level analysis – “not only measuring what organisms are there, but culturing them and sequencing them,” Dr. Kriegel noted, and the new study does just this.

The R. gnavus strains isolated during lupus flares were distinguishable from strains found in healthy people – and from strains found by other researchers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease – by their common expression of a novel type of cell membrane–associated lipoglycan. The lipoglycans were recognized by specific serum IgG2 antibodies that were detected concurrently with R. gnavus blooms and lupus flares, Dr. Silverman and his colleagues reported.

Dr. Silverman and Dr. Kriegel both study the paradigm of a gut-barrier breach, whereby pathogenic bacteria cause intestinal permeability, allowing bacterial leakages that trigger inflammation and immune responses. “We think that in lupus and other rheumatic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, a leaky gut barrier is an important mechanism, even though these patients don’t have gastrointestinal symptoms,” said Dr. Kriegel, who has studied the role of another potentially pathogenic bacteria, Enterococcus gallinarum, in SLE.

Strengthening the gut barrier may be a plausible, general approach to reducing the severity of diseases like SLE and RA until more personalized approaches targeting individuals’ microbiome are developed, he noted.

Future treatments involving antibacterial agents, probiotics or dietary regimens that prevent imbalances in the gut microbiome would be “benign,” compared with currently utilized immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Silverman said.

The NYU study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Lupus Research Alliance. Dr. Silverman disclosed that NYU has filed a patent application for an antibody test to detect serum antibodies to the lipoglycan made by some strains of R. gnavus. Dr. Kriegel disclosed that he holds a patent at Yale related to the Enterococcus bacteria he studies, and that he consults for Roche, Enterome, and Eligo Biosciences.

Flares of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), particularly those involving severe kidney disease, were associated with growth spikes of the gut bacteria Ruminococcus blautia gnavus in a small, 4-year observational study that also demonstrated an underlying, inherent instability in the gut microbiome of patients with SLE.

Of 16 patients with SLE studied during the provision of routine care and monitoring, 5 had R. gnavus blooms that were “strikingly concordant with periods of raised disease activity,” Gregg J. Silverman, MD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, and coinvestigators reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Four of the five patients with flare-associated R. gnavus blooms had lupus nephritis (LN); the other had a flare involving inflammation in multiple joints. The four patients with concurrent LN and spikes in R. gnavus also represented almost half of patients who had LN disease flares (four of nine) during the study period. The nine patients in the study with renal involvement, and the four with concurrent R. gnavus spikes and flares, represented different races and ethnicities.

The findings build upon research published by the NYU group several years ago showing that patients with SLE had more R. gnavus in the gut than similar patients without the disease, and that flares closely tracked major increases in R. gnavus growth. Evidence of R. gnavus expansions in patients with SLE now comes from several cohorts in the United States as well as cohorts in Europe and China, the researchers noted in their new paper.
 

An underlying, unstable microbiome

The new study at NYU took a “deeper dive” than previous research, looking at individuals over a longer period of time, Dr. Silverman, the study’s senior investigator and associate director of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Blood and a total of 44 stool samples from the 16 patients were analyzed, as were a total of 72 stool samples from 22 healthy control volunteers.

Importantly, he said, the gut microbiome in patients with SLE was found to be inherently unstable over time, compared with the microbiota communities of the controls. “There was an instability, a shifting dynamic composition of the microbiome [in patients with lupus]. ... Healthy individuals had more of a balance, with small changes over time” and a stable, low abundance of R. gnavus, Dr. Silverman said.

Transient expansions of several pathogenic species occurred in some of the patients with lupus (and not in controls), but blooms of R. gnavus were the most common. The researchers said in their paper that they “speculate that susceptibility for specific clinical features during R. gnavus blooms reflect in part differences in genetic susceptibility of the patient.”

Patients on cytotoxic agents or antibiotics were excluded from the study, but the study was not designed to disentangle the potential influence of diet or prior antibiotic exposure, they noted. Larger studies are needed that are better controlled and that include more frequent assessments, Dr. Silverman added.
 

A sure association and probable cause

“There seems to be a special connection [of R. gnavus] to lupus nephritis, which is an important, major subset of disease,” said Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, chief or rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Munster (Germany). Dr. Kriegel also researches the gut microbiome in lupus and was asked to comment on the new findings from NYU.

The “difficult question is, is the bug driving the flare [as the NYU paper proposes], or is it the lupus nephritis that leads to overgrowth?” he said, noting that it “is well known that kidney disease, whether from lupus or other causes, creates disturbances in the microbiome.”

It’s “likely the case” that the pathobiome – with R. gnavus being an important pathobiont – helps to drive flares, he said. The new research shows only an association, but studies done in mice – including prior research by Dr. Silverman – support a mechanistic link, said Dr. Kriegel, also adjunct associate professor of immunobiology and of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Investigators in the microbiome space are moving toward more strain-level analysis – “not only measuring what organisms are there, but culturing them and sequencing them,” Dr. Kriegel noted, and the new study does just this.

The R. gnavus strains isolated during lupus flares were distinguishable from strains found in healthy people – and from strains found by other researchers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease – by their common expression of a novel type of cell membrane–associated lipoglycan. The lipoglycans were recognized by specific serum IgG2 antibodies that were detected concurrently with R. gnavus blooms and lupus flares, Dr. Silverman and his colleagues reported.

Dr. Silverman and Dr. Kriegel both study the paradigm of a gut-barrier breach, whereby pathogenic bacteria cause intestinal permeability, allowing bacterial leakages that trigger inflammation and immune responses. “We think that in lupus and other rheumatic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, a leaky gut barrier is an important mechanism, even though these patients don’t have gastrointestinal symptoms,” said Dr. Kriegel, who has studied the role of another potentially pathogenic bacteria, Enterococcus gallinarum, in SLE.

Strengthening the gut barrier may be a plausible, general approach to reducing the severity of diseases like SLE and RA until more personalized approaches targeting individuals’ microbiome are developed, he noted.

Future treatments involving antibacterial agents, probiotics or dietary regimens that prevent imbalances in the gut microbiome would be “benign,” compared with currently utilized immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Silverman said.

The NYU study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Lupus Research Alliance. Dr. Silverman disclosed that NYU has filed a patent application for an antibody test to detect serum antibodies to the lipoglycan made by some strains of R. gnavus. Dr. Kriegel disclosed that he holds a patent at Yale related to the Enterococcus bacteria he studies, and that he consults for Roche, Enterome, and Eligo Biosciences.

Flares of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), particularly those involving severe kidney disease, were associated with growth spikes of the gut bacteria Ruminococcus blautia gnavus in a small, 4-year observational study that also demonstrated an underlying, inherent instability in the gut microbiome of patients with SLE.

Of 16 patients with SLE studied during the provision of routine care and monitoring, 5 had R. gnavus blooms that were “strikingly concordant with periods of raised disease activity,” Gregg J. Silverman, MD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, and coinvestigators reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Four of the five patients with flare-associated R. gnavus blooms had lupus nephritis (LN); the other had a flare involving inflammation in multiple joints. The four patients with concurrent LN and spikes in R. gnavus also represented almost half of patients who had LN disease flares (four of nine) during the study period. The nine patients in the study with renal involvement, and the four with concurrent R. gnavus spikes and flares, represented different races and ethnicities.

The findings build upon research published by the NYU group several years ago showing that patients with SLE had more R. gnavus in the gut than similar patients without the disease, and that flares closely tracked major increases in R. gnavus growth. Evidence of R. gnavus expansions in patients with SLE now comes from several cohorts in the United States as well as cohorts in Europe and China, the researchers noted in their new paper.
 

An underlying, unstable microbiome

The new study at NYU took a “deeper dive” than previous research, looking at individuals over a longer period of time, Dr. Silverman, the study’s senior investigator and associate director of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Blood and a total of 44 stool samples from the 16 patients were analyzed, as were a total of 72 stool samples from 22 healthy control volunteers.

Importantly, he said, the gut microbiome in patients with SLE was found to be inherently unstable over time, compared with the microbiota communities of the controls. “There was an instability, a shifting dynamic composition of the microbiome [in patients with lupus]. ... Healthy individuals had more of a balance, with small changes over time” and a stable, low abundance of R. gnavus, Dr. Silverman said.

Transient expansions of several pathogenic species occurred in some of the patients with lupus (and not in controls), but blooms of R. gnavus were the most common. The researchers said in their paper that they “speculate that susceptibility for specific clinical features during R. gnavus blooms reflect in part differences in genetic susceptibility of the patient.”

Patients on cytotoxic agents or antibiotics were excluded from the study, but the study was not designed to disentangle the potential influence of diet or prior antibiotic exposure, they noted. Larger studies are needed that are better controlled and that include more frequent assessments, Dr. Silverman added.
 

A sure association and probable cause

“There seems to be a special connection [of R. gnavus] to lupus nephritis, which is an important, major subset of disease,” said Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, chief or rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Munster (Germany). Dr. Kriegel also researches the gut microbiome in lupus and was asked to comment on the new findings from NYU.

The “difficult question is, is the bug driving the flare [as the NYU paper proposes], or is it the lupus nephritis that leads to overgrowth?” he said, noting that it “is well known that kidney disease, whether from lupus or other causes, creates disturbances in the microbiome.”

It’s “likely the case” that the pathobiome – with R. gnavus being an important pathobiont – helps to drive flares, he said. The new research shows only an association, but studies done in mice – including prior research by Dr. Silverman – support a mechanistic link, said Dr. Kriegel, also adjunct associate professor of immunobiology and of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Investigators in the microbiome space are moving toward more strain-level analysis – “not only measuring what organisms are there, but culturing them and sequencing them,” Dr. Kriegel noted, and the new study does just this.

The R. gnavus strains isolated during lupus flares were distinguishable from strains found in healthy people – and from strains found by other researchers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease – by their common expression of a novel type of cell membrane–associated lipoglycan. The lipoglycans were recognized by specific serum IgG2 antibodies that were detected concurrently with R. gnavus blooms and lupus flares, Dr. Silverman and his colleagues reported.

Dr. Silverman and Dr. Kriegel both study the paradigm of a gut-barrier breach, whereby pathogenic bacteria cause intestinal permeability, allowing bacterial leakages that trigger inflammation and immune responses. “We think that in lupus and other rheumatic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, a leaky gut barrier is an important mechanism, even though these patients don’t have gastrointestinal symptoms,” said Dr. Kriegel, who has studied the role of another potentially pathogenic bacteria, Enterococcus gallinarum, in SLE.

Strengthening the gut barrier may be a plausible, general approach to reducing the severity of diseases like SLE and RA until more personalized approaches targeting individuals’ microbiome are developed, he noted.

Future treatments involving antibacterial agents, probiotics or dietary regimens that prevent imbalances in the gut microbiome would be “benign,” compared with currently utilized immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Silverman said.

The NYU study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Lupus Research Alliance. Dr. Silverman disclosed that NYU has filed a patent application for an antibody test to detect serum antibodies to the lipoglycan made by some strains of R. gnavus. Dr. Kriegel disclosed that he holds a patent at Yale related to the Enterococcus bacteria he studies, and that he consults for Roche, Enterome, and Eligo Biosciences.

On July 6, the Food and Drug Administration updated its informational webpage on dermal fillers to reflect the risk of delayed-onset inflammation near dermal filler treatment sites.

Along with a list of common reactions such as bruising, redness, swelling, and pain, the webpage now includes language to inform the public and health care providers about reports of delayed-onset inflammation that have been reported to occur near the dermal filler treatment site following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures. According to an FDA spokesperson, the update is based on several sources of information, including postmarketing data from adverse event–reporting databases, such as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) for devices and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for vaccines, published literature, and recommendations from federal agencies and professional societies.

“More specifically, the site was updated to include certain risks of using dermal fillers such as swelling and bruising as well as some less common risks such as inflammation – swelling or redness near the dermal filler injection site – following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures,” the spokesperson said.

The announcement about the update also states that “typically, the reported inflammation is responsive to treatment or resolves on its own.”

Other less common risks from dermal filler use listed on the website include bumps in or under the skin (nodules or granulomas) that may need to be treated with injections, oral antibiotics, or surgical removal; infection; open or draining wounds; a sore at the injection site; allergic reactions; or necrosis.

Meanwhile, rare risks from dermal filler use that have been reported to the FDA include severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic shock) that require immediate emergency medical assistance; migration (movement of filler material from the site of injection); leakage or rupture of the filler material at the injection site or through the skin (which may result from a tissue reaction or an infection); the formation of permanent hard nodules; and injury to the blood supply after an unintentional injection into a blood vessel, resulting in necrosis, vision abnormalities (including blindness), or stroke.

Health care professionals, patients, and others can report adverse events related to dermal fillers and other medical devices to the FDA at 800-FDA-1088 or on the MAUDE website.

On July 6, the Food and Drug Administration updated its informational webpage on dermal fillers to reflect the risk of delayed-onset inflammation near dermal filler treatment sites.

Along with a list of common reactions such as bruising, redness, swelling, and pain, the webpage now includes language to inform the public and health care providers about reports of delayed-onset inflammation that have been reported to occur near the dermal filler treatment site following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures. According to an FDA spokesperson, the update is based on several sources of information, including postmarketing data from adverse event–reporting databases, such as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) for devices and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for vaccines, published literature, and recommendations from federal agencies and professional societies.

“More specifically, the site was updated to include certain risks of using dermal fillers such as swelling and bruising as well as some less common risks such as inflammation – swelling or redness near the dermal filler injection site – following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures,” the spokesperson said.

The announcement about the update also states that “typically, the reported inflammation is responsive to treatment or resolves on its own.”

Other less common risks from dermal filler use listed on the website include bumps in or under the skin (nodules or granulomas) that may need to be treated with injections, oral antibiotics, or surgical removal; infection; open or draining wounds; a sore at the injection site; allergic reactions; or necrosis.

Meanwhile, rare risks from dermal filler use that have been reported to the FDA include severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic shock) that require immediate emergency medical assistance; migration (movement of filler material from the site of injection); leakage or rupture of the filler material at the injection site or through the skin (which may result from a tissue reaction or an infection); the formation of permanent hard nodules; and injury to the blood supply after an unintentional injection into a blood vessel, resulting in necrosis, vision abnormalities (including blindness), or stroke.

Health care professionals, patients, and others can report adverse events related to dermal fillers and other medical devices to the FDA at 800-FDA-1088 or on the MAUDE website.

On July 6, the Food and Drug Administration updated its informational webpage on dermal fillers to reflect the risk of delayed-onset inflammation near dermal filler treatment sites.

Along with a list of common reactions such as bruising, redness, swelling, and pain, the webpage now includes language to inform the public and health care providers about reports of delayed-onset inflammation that have been reported to occur near the dermal filler treatment site following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures. According to an FDA spokesperson, the update is based on several sources of information, including postmarketing data from adverse event–reporting databases, such as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) for devices and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for vaccines, published literature, and recommendations from federal agencies and professional societies.

“More specifically, the site was updated to include certain risks of using dermal fillers such as swelling and bruising as well as some less common risks such as inflammation – swelling or redness near the dermal filler injection site – following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures,” the spokesperson said.

The announcement about the update also states that “typically, the reported inflammation is responsive to treatment or resolves on its own.”

Other less common risks from dermal filler use listed on the website include bumps in or under the skin (nodules or granulomas) that may need to be treated with injections, oral antibiotics, or surgical removal; infection; open or draining wounds; a sore at the injection site; allergic reactions; or necrosis.

Meanwhile, rare risks from dermal filler use that have been reported to the FDA include severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic shock) that require immediate emergency medical assistance; migration (movement of filler material from the site of injection); leakage or rupture of the filler material at the injection site or through the skin (which may result from a tissue reaction or an infection); the formation of permanent hard nodules; and injury to the blood supply after an unintentional injection into a blood vessel, resulting in necrosis, vision abnormalities (including blindness), or stroke.

Health care professionals, patients, and others can report adverse events related to dermal fillers and other medical devices to the FDA at 800-FDA-1088 or on the MAUDE website.

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

To the Editor:

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated dermatologic condition that is associated with various comorbidities, including obesity.¹ The underlying pathophysiology of psoriasis has been extensively studied, and recent research has discussed the role of obesity in IL-17 secretion.² The relationship between being overweight/obese and having psoriasis has been documented in the literature.^1,2 However, this association in a recent population is lacking. We sought to investigate the association between psoriasis and obesity utilizing a representative US population of adults—the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data,³ which contains the most recent psoriasis data.

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database. Three 2-year cycles of NHANES data were combined to create our 2009 to 2014 dataset. In the Table, numerous variables including age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, education, diabetes status, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and being called overweight by a health care provider were analyzed using χ² or t test analyses to evaluate for differences among those with and without psoriasis. Diabetes status was assessed by the question “Other than during pregnancy, have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have diabetes or sugar diabetes?” Tobacco use was assessed by the question “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?” Psoriasis status was assessed by a self-reported response to the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health care professional that you had psoriasis?” Three different outcome variables were used to determine if patients were overweight or obese: BMI, waist circumference, and response to the question “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?” Obesity was defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher or waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females.⁴ Being overweight was defined as having a BMI of 25 to 29.99 or response of Yes to “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?”

Initially, there were 17,547 participants 20 years and older from 2009 to 2014, but 1654 participants were excluded because of missing data for obesity or psoriasis; therefore, 15,893 patients were included in our analysis. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between psoriasis and being overweight/obese (eTable). Additionally, the models were adjusted based on age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, diabetes status, and tobacco use. All data processing and analysis were performed in Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

The Table shows characteristics of US adults with and without psoriasis in NHANES 2009-2014. We found that the variables of interest evaluating body weight that were significantly different on analysis between patients with and without psoriasis included waist circumference—patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher waist circumference (P=.009)—and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (P<.0001), which supports the findings by Love et al,⁵ who reported abdominal obesity was the most common feature of metabolic syndrome exhibited among patients with psoriasis.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis (eTable) revealed that there was a significant association between psoriasis and BMI of 25 to 29.99 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76; P=.04) and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.52; P<.001). After adjusting for confounding variables, there was no significant association between psoriasis and a BMI of 30 or higher (AOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.38; P=.99) or a waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86-1.53; P=.3).

Our findings suggest that a few variables indicative of being overweight or obese are associated with psoriasis. This relationship most likely is due to increased adipokine, including resistin, levels in overweight individuals, resulting in a proinflammatory state.⁶ It has been suggested that BMI alone is not a definitive marker for measuring fat storage levels in individuals. People can have a normal or slightly elevated BMI but possess excessive adiposity, resulting in chronic inflammation.⁶ Therefore, our findings of a significant association between psoriasis and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight might be a stronger measurement for possessing excessive fat, as this is likely due to clinical judgment rather than BMI measurement.

Moreover, it should be noted that the potential reason for the lack of association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis in our analysis may be a result of BMI serving as a poor measurement for adiposity. Additionally, Armstrong and colleagues⁷ discussed that the association between BMI and psoriasis was stronger for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Our study consisted of NHANES data for self-reported psoriasis diagnoses without a psoriasis severity index, making it difficult to extrapolate which individuals had mild or moderate to severe psoriasis, which may have contributed to our finding of no association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis.

The self-reported nature of the survey questions and lack of questions regarding psoriasis severity serve as limitations to the study. Both obesity and psoriasis can have various systemic consequences, such as cardiovascular disease, due to the development of an inflammatory state.⁸ Future studies may explore other body measurements that indicate being overweight or obese and the potential synergistic relationship of obesity and psoriasis severity, optimizing the development of effective treatment plans.

To the Editor:

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated dermatologic condition that is associated with various comorbidities, including obesity.¹ The underlying pathophysiology of psoriasis has been extensively studied, and recent research has discussed the role of obesity in IL-17 secretion.² The relationship between being overweight/obese and having psoriasis has been documented in the literature.^1,2 However, this association in a recent population is lacking. We sought to investigate the association between psoriasis and obesity utilizing a representative US population of adults—the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data,³ which contains the most recent psoriasis data.

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database. Three 2-year cycles of NHANES data were combined to create our 2009 to 2014 dataset. In the Table, numerous variables including age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, education, diabetes status, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and being called overweight by a health care provider were analyzed using χ² or t test analyses to evaluate for differences among those with and without psoriasis. Diabetes status was assessed by the question “Other than during pregnancy, have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have diabetes or sugar diabetes?” Tobacco use was assessed by the question “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?” Psoriasis status was assessed by a self-reported response to the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health care professional that you had psoriasis?” Three different outcome variables were used to determine if patients were overweight or obese: BMI, waist circumference, and response to the question “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?” Obesity was defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher or waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females.⁴ Being overweight was defined as having a BMI of 25 to 29.99 or response of Yes to “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?”

Initially, there were 17,547 participants 20 years and older from 2009 to 2014, but 1654 participants were excluded because of missing data for obesity or psoriasis; therefore, 15,893 patients were included in our analysis. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between psoriasis and being overweight/obese (eTable). Additionally, the models were adjusted based on age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, diabetes status, and tobacco use. All data processing and analysis were performed in Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

The Table shows characteristics of US adults with and without psoriasis in NHANES 2009-2014. We found that the variables of interest evaluating body weight that were significantly different on analysis between patients with and without psoriasis included waist circumference—patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher waist circumference (P=.009)—and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (P<.0001), which supports the findings by Love et al,⁵ who reported abdominal obesity was the most common feature of metabolic syndrome exhibited among patients with psoriasis.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis (eTable) revealed that there was a significant association between psoriasis and BMI of 25 to 29.99 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76; P=.04) and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.52; P<.001). After adjusting for confounding variables, there was no significant association between psoriasis and a BMI of 30 or higher (AOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.38; P=.99) or a waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86-1.53; P=.3).

Our findings suggest that a few variables indicative of being overweight or obese are associated with psoriasis. This relationship most likely is due to increased adipokine, including resistin, levels in overweight individuals, resulting in a proinflammatory state.⁶ It has been suggested that BMI alone is not a definitive marker for measuring fat storage levels in individuals. People can have a normal or slightly elevated BMI but possess excessive adiposity, resulting in chronic inflammation.⁶ Therefore, our findings of a significant association between psoriasis and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight might be a stronger measurement for possessing excessive fat, as this is likely due to clinical judgment rather than BMI measurement.

Moreover, it should be noted that the potential reason for the lack of association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis in our analysis may be a result of BMI serving as a poor measurement for adiposity. Additionally, Armstrong and colleagues⁷ discussed that the association between BMI and psoriasis was stronger for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Our study consisted of NHANES data for self-reported psoriasis diagnoses without a psoriasis severity index, making it difficult to extrapolate which individuals had mild or moderate to severe psoriasis, which may have contributed to our finding of no association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis.

The self-reported nature of the survey questions and lack of questions regarding psoriasis severity serve as limitations to the study. Both obesity and psoriasis can have various systemic consequences, such as cardiovascular disease, due to the development of an inflammatory state.⁸ Future studies may explore other body measurements that indicate being overweight or obese and the potential synergistic relationship of obesity and psoriasis severity, optimizing the development of effective treatment plans.

To the Editor:

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated dermatologic condition that is associated with various comorbidities, including obesity.¹ The underlying pathophysiology of psoriasis has been extensively studied, and recent research has discussed the role of obesity in IL-17 secretion.² The relationship between being overweight/obese and having psoriasis has been documented in the literature.^1,2 However, this association in a recent population is lacking. We sought to investigate the association between psoriasis and obesity utilizing a representative US population of adults—the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data,³ which contains the most recent psoriasis data.

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database. Three 2-year cycles of NHANES data were combined to create our 2009 to 2014 dataset. In the Table, numerous variables including age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, education, diabetes status, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and being called overweight by a health care provider were analyzed using χ² or t test analyses to evaluate for differences among those with and without psoriasis. Diabetes status was assessed by the question “Other than during pregnancy, have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have diabetes or sugar diabetes?” Tobacco use was assessed by the question “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?” Psoriasis status was assessed by a self-reported response to the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health care professional that you had psoriasis?” Three different outcome variables were used to determine if patients were overweight or obese: BMI, waist circumference, and response to the question “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?” Obesity was defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher or waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females.⁴ Being overweight was defined as having a BMI of 25 to 29.99 or response of Yes to “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?”

Initially, there were 17,547 participants 20 years and older from 2009 to 2014, but 1654 participants were excluded because of missing data for obesity or psoriasis; therefore, 15,893 patients were included in our analysis. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between psoriasis and being overweight/obese (eTable). Additionally, the models were adjusted based on age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, diabetes status, and tobacco use. All data processing and analysis were performed in Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

The Table shows characteristics of US adults with and without psoriasis in NHANES 2009-2014. We found that the variables of interest evaluating body weight that were significantly different on analysis between patients with and without psoriasis included waist circumference—patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher waist circumference (P=.009)—and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (P<.0001), which supports the findings by Love et al,⁵ who reported abdominal obesity was the most common feature of metabolic syndrome exhibited among patients with psoriasis.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis (eTable) revealed that there was a significant association between psoriasis and BMI of 25 to 29.99 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76; P=.04) and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.52; P<.001). After adjusting for confounding variables, there was no significant association between psoriasis and a BMI of 30 or higher (AOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.38; P=.99) or a waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86-1.53; P=.3).

Our findings suggest that a few variables indicative of being overweight or obese are associated with psoriasis. This relationship most likely is due to increased adipokine, including resistin, levels in overweight individuals, resulting in a proinflammatory state.⁶ It has been suggested that BMI alone is not a definitive marker for measuring fat storage levels in individuals. People can have a normal or slightly elevated BMI but possess excessive adiposity, resulting in chronic inflammation.⁶ Therefore, our findings of a significant association between psoriasis and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight might be a stronger measurement for possessing excessive fat, as this is likely due to clinical judgment rather than BMI measurement.

Moreover, it should be noted that the potential reason for the lack of association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis in our analysis may be a result of BMI serving as a poor measurement for adiposity. Additionally, Armstrong and colleagues⁷ discussed that the association between BMI and psoriasis was stronger for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Our study consisted of NHANES data for self-reported psoriasis diagnoses without a psoriasis severity index, making it difficult to extrapolate which individuals had mild or moderate to severe psoriasis, which may have contributed to our finding of no association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis.

The self-reported nature of the survey questions and lack of questions regarding psoriasis severity serve as limitations to the study. Both obesity and psoriasis can have various systemic consequences, such as cardiovascular disease, due to the development of an inflammatory state.⁸ Future studies may explore other body measurements that indicate being overweight or obese and the potential synergistic relationship of obesity and psoriasis severity, optimizing the development of effective treatment plans.

Palliative care (PC) is a field of medicine that focuses on improving quality of life by managing physical symptoms as well as mental and spiritual well-being in patients with severe illnesses.^1,2 Despite cases of severe dermatologic disease, the use of PC in the field of dermatology is limited, often leaving patients with a range of unmet needs.^2,3 In one study that explored PC in patients with melanoma, only one-third of patients with advanced melanoma had a PC consultation.⁴ Reasons behind the lack of utilization of PC in dermatology include time constraints and limited training in addressing the complex psychosocial needs of patients with severe dermatologic illnesses.¹ We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, single-institution study of specific inpatient dermatology consultations over a 5-year period to describe PC utilization among patients who were hospitalized with select severe dermatologic diseases.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional study of inpatient dermatology consultations over a 5-year period (October 2016 to October 2021) was performed at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). Patients’ medical records were reviewed if they had one of the following diseases: bullous pemphigoid, calciphylaxis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, erythrodermic psoriasis, graft-vs-host disease, pemphigus vulgaris (PV), purpura fulminans, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. These diseases were selected for inclusion because they have been associated with a documented increase in inpatient mortality and have been described in the published literature on PC in dermatology.² This study was reviewed and approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board.

Use of PC consultative services along with other associated consultative care (ie, recreation therapy [RT], acute pain management, pastoral care) was assessed for each patient. Recreation therapy included specific interventions such as music therapy, arts/craft therapy, pet therapy, and other services with the goal of improving patient cognitive, emotional, and social function. For patients with a completed PC consultation, goals for PC intervention were recorded.

Results

The total study sample included 193 inpatient dermatology consultations. The mean age of the patients was 58.9 years (range, 2–100 years); 66.8% (129/193) were White and 28.5% (55/193) were Black (Table). Palliative care was consulted in 5.7% of cases, with consultations being requested by the primary care team. Reasons for PC consultation included assessment of the patient’s goals of care (4.1% [8/193]), pain management (3.6% [7/193]), non–pain symptom management (2.6% [5/193]), psychosocial support (1.6% [3/193]), and transitions of care (1.0% [2/193]). The average length of patients’ hospital stay prior to PC consultation was 11.5 days(range, 1–32 days). Acute pain management was the reason for consultation in 15.0% of cases (29/193), RT in 21.8% (42/193), and pastoral care in 13.5% (26/193) of cases. Patients with calciphylaxis received the most PC and pain consultations, but fewer than half received these services. Patients with calciphylaxis, PV, purpura fulminans, and CTCL received a higher percentage of PC consultations than the overall cohort, while patients with calciphylaxis, DRESS syndrome, PV, and pyoderma gangrenosum received relatively more pain consultations than the overall cohort (Figure).

Comment

Clinical practice guidelines for quality PC stress the importance of specialists being familiar with these services and the ability to involve PC as part of the treatment plan to achieve better care for patients with serious illnesses.⁵ Our results demonstrated low rates of PC consultation services for dermatology patients, which supports the existing literature and suggests that PC may be highly underutilized in inpatient settings for patients with serious skin diseases. Use of PC was infrequent and was initiated relatively late in the course of hospital admission, which can negatively impact a patient’s well-being and care experience and can increase the care burden on their caregivers and families.²

Our results suggest a discrepancy in the frequency of formal PC and other palliative consultative services used for dermatologic diseases, with non-PC services including RT, acute pain management, and pastoral care more likely to be utilized. Impacting this finding may be that RT, pastoral care, and acute pain management are provided by nonphysician providers at our institution, not attending faculty staffing PC services. Patients with calciphylaxis were more likely to have PC consultations, potentially due to medicine providers’ familiarity with its morbidity and mortality, as it is commonly associated with end-stage renal disease. Similarly, internal medicine providers may be more familiar with pain classically associated with PG and PV and may be more likely to engage pain experts. Some diseases with notable morbidity and potential mortality were underrepresented including SJS/TEN, erythrodermic psoriasis, CTCL, and GVHD.

Limitations of our study included examination of data from a single institution, as well as the small sample sizes in specific subgroups, which prevented us from making comparisons between diseases. The cross-sectional design also limited our ability to control for confounding variables.

Conclusion

We urge dermatology consultation services to advocate for patients with serious skin diseases andinclude PC consultation as part of their recommendations to primary care teams. Further research should characterize the specific needs of patients that may be addressed by PC services and explore ways dermatologists and others can identify and provide specialty care to hospitalized patients.

Palliative care (PC) is a field of medicine that focuses on improving quality of life by managing physical symptoms as well as mental and spiritual well-being in patients with severe illnesses.^1,2 Despite cases of severe dermatologic disease, the use of PC in the field of dermatology is limited, often leaving patients with a range of unmet needs.^2,3 In one study that explored PC in patients with melanoma, only one-third of patients with advanced melanoma had a PC consultation.⁴ Reasons behind the lack of utilization of PC in dermatology include time constraints and limited training in addressing the complex psychosocial needs of patients with severe dermatologic illnesses.¹ We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, single-institution study of specific inpatient dermatology consultations over a 5-year period to describe PC utilization among patients who were hospitalized with select severe dermatologic diseases.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional study of inpatient dermatology consultations over a 5-year period (October 2016 to October 2021) was performed at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). Patients’ medical records were reviewed if they had one of the following diseases: bullous pemphigoid, calciphylaxis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, erythrodermic psoriasis, graft-vs-host disease, pemphigus vulgaris (PV), purpura fulminans, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. These diseases were selected for inclusion because they have been associated with a documented increase in inpatient mortality and have been described in the published literature on PC in dermatology.² This study was reviewed and approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board.

Use of PC consultative services along with other associated consultative care (ie, recreation therapy [RT], acute pain management, pastoral care) was assessed for each patient. Recreation therapy included specific interventions such as music therapy, arts/craft therapy, pet therapy, and other services with the goal of improving patient cognitive, emotional, and social function. For patients with a completed PC consultation, goals for PC intervention were recorded.

Results

The total study sample included 193 inpatient dermatology consultations. The mean age of the patients was 58.9 years (range, 2–100 years); 66.8% (129/193) were White and 28.5% (55/193) were Black (Table). Palliative care was consulted in 5.7% of cases, with consultations being requested by the primary care team. Reasons for PC consultation included assessment of the patient’s goals of care (4.1% [8/193]), pain management (3.6% [7/193]), non–pain symptom management (2.6% [5/193]), psychosocial support (1.6% [3/193]), and transitions of care (1.0% [2/193]). The average length of patients’ hospital stay prior to PC consultation was 11.5 days(range, 1–32 days). Acute pain management was the reason for consultation in 15.0% of cases (29/193), RT in 21.8% (42/193), and pastoral care in 13.5% (26/193) of cases. Patients with calciphylaxis received the most PC and pain consultations, but fewer than half received these services. Patients with calciphylaxis, PV, purpura fulminans, and CTCL received a higher percentage of PC consultations than the overall cohort, while patients with calciphylaxis, DRESS syndrome, PV, and pyoderma gangrenosum received relatively more pain consultations than the overall cohort (Figure).

Comment

Clinical practice guidelines for quality PC stress the importance of specialists being familiar with these services and the ability to involve PC as part of the treatment plan to achieve better care for patients with serious illnesses.⁵ Our results demonstrated low rates of PC consultation services for dermatology patients, which supports the existing literature and suggests that PC may be highly underutilized in inpatient settings for patients with serious skin diseases. Use of PC was infrequent and was initiated relatively late in the course of hospital admission, which can negatively impact a patient’s well-being and care experience and can increase the care burden on their caregivers and families.²

Our results suggest a discrepancy in the frequency of formal PC and other palliative consultative services used for dermatologic diseases, with non-PC services including RT, acute pain management, and pastoral care more likely to be utilized. Impacting this finding may be that RT, pastoral care, and acute pain management are provided by nonphysician providers at our institution, not attending faculty staffing PC services. Patients with calciphylaxis were more likely to have PC consultations, potentially due to medicine providers’ familiarity with its morbidity and mortality, as it is commonly associated with end-stage renal disease. Similarly, internal medicine providers may be more familiar with pain classically associated with PG and PV and may be more likely to engage pain experts. Some diseases with notable morbidity and potential mortality were underrepresented including SJS/TEN, erythrodermic psoriasis, CTCL, and GVHD.

Limitations of our study included examination of data from a single institution, as well as the small sample sizes in specific subgroups, which prevented us from making comparisons between diseases. The cross-sectional design also limited our ability to control for confounding variables.

Conclusion

We urge dermatology consultation services to advocate for patients with serious skin diseases andinclude PC consultation as part of their recommendations to primary care teams. Further research should characterize the specific needs of patients that may be addressed by PC services and explore ways dermatologists and others can identify and provide specialty care to hospitalized patients.

Palliative care (PC) is a field of medicine that focuses on improving quality of life by managing physical symptoms as well as mental and spiritual well-being in patients with severe illnesses.^1,2 Despite cases of severe dermatologic disease, the use of PC in the field of dermatology is limited, often leaving patients with a range of unmet needs.^2,3 In one study that explored PC in patients with melanoma, only one-third of patients with advanced melanoma had a PC consultation.⁴ Reasons behind the lack of utilization of PC in dermatology include time constraints and limited training in addressing the complex psychosocial needs of patients with severe dermatologic illnesses.¹ We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, single-institution study of specific inpatient dermatology consultations over a 5-year period to describe PC utilization among patients who were hospitalized with select severe dermatologic diseases.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional study of inpatient dermatology consultations over a 5-year period (October 2016 to October 2021) was performed at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). Patients’ medical records were reviewed if they had one of the following diseases: bullous pemphigoid, calciphylaxis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, erythrodermic psoriasis, graft-vs-host disease, pemphigus vulgaris (PV), purpura fulminans, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. These diseases were selected for inclusion because they have been associated with a documented increase in inpatient mortality and have been described in the published literature on PC in dermatology.² This study was reviewed and approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board.

Use of PC consultative services along with other associated consultative care (ie, recreation therapy [RT], acute pain management, pastoral care) was assessed for each patient. Recreation therapy included specific interventions such as music therapy, arts/craft therapy, pet therapy, and other services with the goal of improving patient cognitive, emotional, and social function. For patients with a completed PC consultation, goals for PC intervention were recorded.

Results

The total study sample included 193 inpatient dermatology consultations. The mean age of the patients was 58.9 years (range, 2–100 years); 66.8% (129/193) were White and 28.5% (55/193) were Black (Table). Palliative care was consulted in 5.7% of cases, with consultations being requested by the primary care team. Reasons for PC consultation included assessment of the patient’s goals of care (4.1% [8/193]), pain management (3.6% [7/193]), non–pain symptom management (2.6% [5/193]), psychosocial support (1.6% [3/193]), and transitions of care (1.0% [2/193]). The average length of patients’ hospital stay prior to PC consultation was 11.5 days(range, 1–32 days). Acute pain management was the reason for consultation in 15.0% of cases (29/193), RT in 21.8% (42/193), and pastoral care in 13.5% (26/193) of cases. Patients with calciphylaxis received the most PC and pain consultations, but fewer than half received these services. Patients with calciphylaxis, PV, purpura fulminans, and CTCL received a higher percentage of PC consultations than the overall cohort, while patients with calciphylaxis, DRESS syndrome, PV, and pyoderma gangrenosum received relatively more pain consultations than the overall cohort (Figure).

Comment

Clinical practice guidelines for quality PC stress the importance of specialists being familiar with these services and the ability to involve PC as part of the treatment plan to achieve better care for patients with serious illnesses.⁵ Our results demonstrated low rates of PC consultation services for dermatology patients, which supports the existing literature and suggests that PC may be highly underutilized in inpatient settings for patients with serious skin diseases. Use of PC was infrequent and was initiated relatively late in the course of hospital admission, which can negatively impact a patient’s well-being and care experience and can increase the care burden on their caregivers and families.²

Our results suggest a discrepancy in the frequency of formal PC and other palliative consultative services used for dermatologic diseases, with non-PC services including RT, acute pain management, and pastoral care more likely to be utilized. Impacting this finding may be that RT, pastoral care, and acute pain management are provided by nonphysician providers at our institution, not attending faculty staffing PC services. Patients with calciphylaxis were more likely to have PC consultations, potentially due to medicine providers’ familiarity with its morbidity and mortality, as it is commonly associated with end-stage renal disease. Similarly, internal medicine providers may be more familiar with pain classically associated with PG and PV and may be more likely to engage pain experts. Some diseases with notable morbidity and potential mortality were underrepresented including SJS/TEN, erythrodermic psoriasis, CTCL, and GVHD.

Limitations of our study included examination of data from a single institution, as well as the small sample sizes in specific subgroups, which prevented us from making comparisons between diseases. The cross-sectional design also limited our ability to control for confounding variables.

Conclusion

We urge dermatology consultation services to advocate for patients with serious skin diseases andinclude PC consultation as part of their recommendations to primary care teams. Further research should characterize the specific needs of patients that may be addressed by PC services and explore ways dermatologists and others can identify and provide specialty care to hospitalized patients.