MDedge Dermatology

The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.

“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”

Biologics versus biosimilars

In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”

Systematic review

Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.

Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.

The researchers found the following:

At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.

In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.

At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).

Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.

Experts weigh in

Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.

However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.

“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”

Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.

“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.

Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.

“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”

Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.

Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.

The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.

“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”

Biologics versus biosimilars

In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”

Systematic review

Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.

Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.

The researchers found the following:

At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.

In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.

At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).

Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.

Experts weigh in

Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.

However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.

“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”

Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.

“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.

Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.

“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”

Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.

Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.

The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.

“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”

Biologics versus biosimilars

In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”

Systematic review

Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.

Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.

The researchers found the following:

At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.

In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.

At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).

Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.

Experts weigh in

Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.

However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.

“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”

Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.

“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.

Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.

“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”

Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.

Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

To the Editor:

Porocarcinoma is a rare malignancy of the eccrine sweat glands and is commonly misdiagnosed clinically. We present 2 cases of porocarcinoma and highlight key features of this uncommon disease.

A 65-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a chief concern of a bump on the head of 8 months' duration that gradually enlarged. The lesion recently became painful and contributed to frequent headaches. He reported a history of smoking 1 pack per day and denied trauma to the area or history of immunosuppression. He had no personal or family history of skin cancer. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm, heterochromic, pedunculated, keratotic tumor with crusting on the right temporal scalp (Figure 1). No lymphadenopathy was appreciated. The clinical differential diagnosis included irritated seborrheic keratosis, pyogenic granuloma, polypoid malignant melanoma, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. A biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a proliferation of cuboidal cells with focal ductular differentiation arranged in interanastamosing strands arising from the epidermis (Figure 2). Scattered mitotic figures, including atypical forms, cytologic atypia, and foci of necrosis, also were present. The findings were consistent with features of porocarcinoma. Contrast computed tomography of the neck showed no evidence of metastatic disease within the neck. A wide local excision was performed and yielded a tumor measuring 1.8×1.6×0.7 cm with a depth of 0.3 cm and uninvolved margins. No lymphovascular or perineural invasion was identified. At 4-month follow-up, the patient had a well-healed scar on the right scalp without evidence of recurrence or lymphadenopathy.

A 32-year-old woman presented to dermatology with a chief concern of a mass on the back of 2 years’ duration that rapidly enlarged and became painful following irritation from her bra strap 2 months earlier. She had no relevant medical history. Physical examination revealed a firm, tender, heterochromic nodule measuring 3.0×2.8 cm on the left mid back inferior to the left scapula (Figure 3). The lesion expressed serosanguineous discharge. No lymphadenopathy was appreciated on examination. The clinical differential diagnosis included an inflamed cyst, nodular melanoma, cutaneous metastasis, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. The patient underwent an excisional biopsy, which demonstrated porocarcinoma with positive margins, microsatellitosis, and evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry highlighted ducts within the tumor (Figure 4). The patient underwent re-excision with 2-cm margins, and no residual tumor was appreciated on pathology.

Positron emission tomography and computed tomography revealed a hypermetabolic left axillary lymph node. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was positive for malignant cells consistent with metastatic carcinoma. Dissection of left axillary lymph nodes yielded metastatic porocarcinoma in 2 of 13 nodes. The largest tumor deposit measured 0.9 cm, and no extracapsular extension was identified. The patient continues to be monitored with semiannual full-body skin examinations as well as positron emission tomography and computed tomography scans, with no evidence of recurrence 2 years later.

Porocarcinoma is a rare malignancy of the skin arising from the eccrine sweat glands¹ with an incidence rate of 0.4 cases per 1 million person-years in the United States. These tumors represent 0.005% to 0.01% of all skin cancers.² The mean age of onset is approximately 65 years with no predilection for sex. The mean time from initial presentation to treatment is 5.6 to 8.5 years.^3-5

Eccrine sweat glands consist of a straight intradermal duct (syrinx); coiled intradermal duct; and spiral intraepidermal duct (acrosyringium), which opens onto the skin. Both eccrine poromas (solitary benign eccrine gland tumors) and eccrine porocarcinomas develop from the acrosyringium. Eccrine poromas most commonly are found in sites containing the highest density of eccrine glands such as the palms, soles, axillae, and forehead, whereas porocarcinomas most commonly are found on the head, neck, arms, and legs.^1,3,4,6,7 A solitary painless nodule that may ulcerate or bleed is the most common presentation.^1,3-5,7

The etiology of eccrine porocarcinoma is poorly understood, but it has been found to arise de novo or to develop from pre-existing poromas or even from nevus sebaceus of Jadassohn. Chronic sunlight exposure, irradiation, lymphedema, trauma, and immunosuppression (eg, Hodgkin disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, HIV) have been reported as potential predisposing factors.^3,4,6,8,9

Eccrine porocarcinoma often is clinically misdiagnosed as nonmelanoma skin cancer, pyogenic granuloma, amelanotic melanoma, fibroma, verruca vulgaris, or metastatic carcinoma. Appropriate classification is essential, as metastasis is present in 25% to 31% of cases, and local recurrence occurs in 20% to 25% of cases.^1,3-5,7

Microscopically, porocarcinomas are comprised of atypical basaloid epithelial cells with focal ductular differentiation. Typically, there is an extensive intraepidermal component that invades into the dermis in anastomosing ribbons and cords. The degree of nuclear atypia, mitotic activity, and invasive growth pattern, as well as the presence of necrosis, are useful histologic features to differentiate porocarcinoma from poroma, which may be present in the background. Given the sometimes-extensive squamous differentiation, porocarcinoma can be confused with squamous cell carcinoma. In these cases, immunohistochemical stains such as epithelial membrane antigen or carcinoembryonic antigen can be used to highlight the ductal differentiation.^1,5,8,10

Poor histologic prognostic indicators include a high mitotic index (>14 mitoses per field), a tumor depth greater than 7 mm, and evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Positive lymph node involvement is associated with a 65% to 67% mortality rate.^1,8

Because of its propensity to metastasize via the lymphatic system and the high mortality rate associated with such metastases, early identification and treatment are essential. Treatment is accomplished via Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision with negative margins. Lymphadenectomy is indicated if regional lymph nodes are involved. Radiation and chemotherapy have been used in patients with metastatic and recurrent disease with mixed results.^1,3-5,7 There is no adequate standardized chemotherapy or drug regimen established for porocarcinoma.⁵ Tsunoda et al¹¹ proposed that sentinel lymph node biopsy should be considered first-line management of eccrine porocarcinoma; however, this remains unproven on the basis of a limited case series. Others conclude that sentinel lymph node biopsy should be recommended for cases with poor histologic prognostic features.^1,5

To the Editor:

Porocarcinoma is a rare malignancy of the eccrine sweat glands and is commonly misdiagnosed clinically. We present 2 cases of porocarcinoma and highlight key features of this uncommon disease.

A 65-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a chief concern of a bump on the head of 8 months' duration that gradually enlarged. The lesion recently became painful and contributed to frequent headaches. He reported a history of smoking 1 pack per day and denied trauma to the area or history of immunosuppression. He had no personal or family history of skin cancer. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm, heterochromic, pedunculated, keratotic tumor with crusting on the right temporal scalp (Figure 1). No lymphadenopathy was appreciated. The clinical differential diagnosis included irritated seborrheic keratosis, pyogenic granuloma, polypoid malignant melanoma, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. A biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a proliferation of cuboidal cells with focal ductular differentiation arranged in interanastamosing strands arising from the epidermis (Figure 2). Scattered mitotic figures, including atypical forms, cytologic atypia, and foci of necrosis, also were present. The findings were consistent with features of porocarcinoma. Contrast computed tomography of the neck showed no evidence of metastatic disease within the neck. A wide local excision was performed and yielded a tumor measuring 1.8×1.6×0.7 cm with a depth of 0.3 cm and uninvolved margins. No lymphovascular or perineural invasion was identified. At 4-month follow-up, the patient had a well-healed scar on the right scalp without evidence of recurrence or lymphadenopathy.

A 32-year-old woman presented to dermatology with a chief concern of a mass on the back of 2 years’ duration that rapidly enlarged and became painful following irritation from her bra strap 2 months earlier. She had no relevant medical history. Physical examination revealed a firm, tender, heterochromic nodule measuring 3.0×2.8 cm on the left mid back inferior to the left scapula (Figure 3). The lesion expressed serosanguineous discharge. No lymphadenopathy was appreciated on examination. The clinical differential diagnosis included an inflamed cyst, nodular melanoma, cutaneous metastasis, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. The patient underwent an excisional biopsy, which demonstrated porocarcinoma with positive margins, microsatellitosis, and evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry highlighted ducts within the tumor (Figure 4). The patient underwent re-excision with 2-cm margins, and no residual tumor was appreciated on pathology.

Positron emission tomography and computed tomography revealed a hypermetabolic left axillary lymph node. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was positive for malignant cells consistent with metastatic carcinoma. Dissection of left axillary lymph nodes yielded metastatic porocarcinoma in 2 of 13 nodes. The largest tumor deposit measured 0.9 cm, and no extracapsular extension was identified. The patient continues to be monitored with semiannual full-body skin examinations as well as positron emission tomography and computed tomography scans, with no evidence of recurrence 2 years later.

Porocarcinoma is a rare malignancy of the skin arising from the eccrine sweat glands¹ with an incidence rate of 0.4 cases per 1 million person-years in the United States. These tumors represent 0.005% to 0.01% of all skin cancers.² The mean age of onset is approximately 65 years with no predilection for sex. The mean time from initial presentation to treatment is 5.6 to 8.5 years.^3-5

Eccrine sweat glands consist of a straight intradermal duct (syrinx); coiled intradermal duct; and spiral intraepidermal duct (acrosyringium), which opens onto the skin. Both eccrine poromas (solitary benign eccrine gland tumors) and eccrine porocarcinomas develop from the acrosyringium. Eccrine poromas most commonly are found in sites containing the highest density of eccrine glands such as the palms, soles, axillae, and forehead, whereas porocarcinomas most commonly are found on the head, neck, arms, and legs.^1,3,4,6,7 A solitary painless nodule that may ulcerate or bleed is the most common presentation.^1,3-5,7

The etiology of eccrine porocarcinoma is poorly understood, but it has been found to arise de novo or to develop from pre-existing poromas or even from nevus sebaceus of Jadassohn. Chronic sunlight exposure, irradiation, lymphedema, trauma, and immunosuppression (eg, Hodgkin disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, HIV) have been reported as potential predisposing factors.^3,4,6,8,9

Eccrine porocarcinoma often is clinically misdiagnosed as nonmelanoma skin cancer, pyogenic granuloma, amelanotic melanoma, fibroma, verruca vulgaris, or metastatic carcinoma. Appropriate classification is essential, as metastasis is present in 25% to 31% of cases, and local recurrence occurs in 20% to 25% of cases.^1,3-5,7

Microscopically, porocarcinomas are comprised of atypical basaloid epithelial cells with focal ductular differentiation. Typically, there is an extensive intraepidermal component that invades into the dermis in anastomosing ribbons and cords. The degree of nuclear atypia, mitotic activity, and invasive growth pattern, as well as the presence of necrosis, are useful histologic features to differentiate porocarcinoma from poroma, which may be present in the background. Given the sometimes-extensive squamous differentiation, porocarcinoma can be confused with squamous cell carcinoma. In these cases, immunohistochemical stains such as epithelial membrane antigen or carcinoembryonic antigen can be used to highlight the ductal differentiation.^1,5,8,10

Poor histologic prognostic indicators include a high mitotic index (>14 mitoses per field), a tumor depth greater than 7 mm, and evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Positive lymph node involvement is associated with a 65% to 67% mortality rate.^1,8

Because of its propensity to metastasize via the lymphatic system and the high mortality rate associated with such metastases, early identification and treatment are essential. Treatment is accomplished via Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision with negative margins. Lymphadenectomy is indicated if regional lymph nodes are involved. Radiation and chemotherapy have been used in patients with metastatic and recurrent disease with mixed results.^1,3-5,7 There is no adequate standardized chemotherapy or drug regimen established for porocarcinoma.⁵ Tsunoda et al¹¹ proposed that sentinel lymph node biopsy should be considered first-line management of eccrine porocarcinoma; however, this remains unproven on the basis of a limited case series. Others conclude that sentinel lymph node biopsy should be recommended for cases with poor histologic prognostic features.^1,5

To the Editor:

Porocarcinoma is a rare malignancy of the eccrine sweat glands and is commonly misdiagnosed clinically. We present 2 cases of porocarcinoma and highlight key features of this uncommon disease.

A 65-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a chief concern of a bump on the head of 8 months' duration that gradually enlarged. The lesion recently became painful and contributed to frequent headaches. He reported a history of smoking 1 pack per day and denied trauma to the area or history of immunosuppression. He had no personal or family history of skin cancer. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm, heterochromic, pedunculated, keratotic tumor with crusting on the right temporal scalp (Figure 1). No lymphadenopathy was appreciated. The clinical differential diagnosis included irritated seborrheic keratosis, pyogenic granuloma, polypoid malignant melanoma, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. A biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a proliferation of cuboidal cells with focal ductular differentiation arranged in interanastamosing strands arising from the epidermis (Figure 2). Scattered mitotic figures, including atypical forms, cytologic atypia, and foci of necrosis, also were present. The findings were consistent with features of porocarcinoma. Contrast computed tomography of the neck showed no evidence of metastatic disease within the neck. A wide local excision was performed and yielded a tumor measuring 1.8×1.6×0.7 cm with a depth of 0.3 cm and uninvolved margins. No lymphovascular or perineural invasion was identified. At 4-month follow-up, the patient had a well-healed scar on the right scalp without evidence of recurrence or lymphadenopathy.

A 32-year-old woman presented to dermatology with a chief concern of a mass on the back of 2 years’ duration that rapidly enlarged and became painful following irritation from her bra strap 2 months earlier. She had no relevant medical history. Physical examination revealed a firm, tender, heterochromic nodule measuring 3.0×2.8 cm on the left mid back inferior to the left scapula (Figure 3). The lesion expressed serosanguineous discharge. No lymphadenopathy was appreciated on examination. The clinical differential diagnosis included an inflamed cyst, nodular melanoma, cutaneous metastasis, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. The patient underwent an excisional biopsy, which demonstrated porocarcinoma with positive margins, microsatellitosis, and evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry highlighted ducts within the tumor (Figure 4). The patient underwent re-excision with 2-cm margins, and no residual tumor was appreciated on pathology.

Positron emission tomography and computed tomography revealed a hypermetabolic left axillary lymph node. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was positive for malignant cells consistent with metastatic carcinoma. Dissection of left axillary lymph nodes yielded metastatic porocarcinoma in 2 of 13 nodes. The largest tumor deposit measured 0.9 cm, and no extracapsular extension was identified. The patient continues to be monitored with semiannual full-body skin examinations as well as positron emission tomography and computed tomography scans, with no evidence of recurrence 2 years later.

Porocarcinoma is a rare malignancy of the skin arising from the eccrine sweat glands¹ with an incidence rate of 0.4 cases per 1 million person-years in the United States. These tumors represent 0.005% to 0.01% of all skin cancers.² The mean age of onset is approximately 65 years with no predilection for sex. The mean time from initial presentation to treatment is 5.6 to 8.5 years.^3-5

Eccrine sweat glands consist of a straight intradermal duct (syrinx); coiled intradermal duct; and spiral intraepidermal duct (acrosyringium), which opens onto the skin. Both eccrine poromas (solitary benign eccrine gland tumors) and eccrine porocarcinomas develop from the acrosyringium. Eccrine poromas most commonly are found in sites containing the highest density of eccrine glands such as the palms, soles, axillae, and forehead, whereas porocarcinomas most commonly are found on the head, neck, arms, and legs.^1,3,4,6,7 A solitary painless nodule that may ulcerate or bleed is the most common presentation.^1,3-5,7

The etiology of eccrine porocarcinoma is poorly understood, but it has been found to arise de novo or to develop from pre-existing poromas or even from nevus sebaceus of Jadassohn. Chronic sunlight exposure, irradiation, lymphedema, trauma, and immunosuppression (eg, Hodgkin disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, HIV) have been reported as potential predisposing factors.^3,4,6,8,9

Eccrine porocarcinoma often is clinically misdiagnosed as nonmelanoma skin cancer, pyogenic granuloma, amelanotic melanoma, fibroma, verruca vulgaris, or metastatic carcinoma. Appropriate classification is essential, as metastasis is present in 25% to 31% of cases, and local recurrence occurs in 20% to 25% of cases.^1,3-5,7

Microscopically, porocarcinomas are comprised of atypical basaloid epithelial cells with focal ductular differentiation. Typically, there is an extensive intraepidermal component that invades into the dermis in anastomosing ribbons and cords. The degree of nuclear atypia, mitotic activity, and invasive growth pattern, as well as the presence of necrosis, are useful histologic features to differentiate porocarcinoma from poroma, which may be present in the background. Given the sometimes-extensive squamous differentiation, porocarcinoma can be confused with squamous cell carcinoma. In these cases, immunohistochemical stains such as epithelial membrane antigen or carcinoembryonic antigen can be used to highlight the ductal differentiation.^1,5,8,10

Poor histologic prognostic indicators include a high mitotic index (>14 mitoses per field), a tumor depth greater than 7 mm, and evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Positive lymph node involvement is associated with a 65% to 67% mortality rate.^1,8

Because of its propensity to metastasize via the lymphatic system and the high mortality rate associated with such metastases, early identification and treatment are essential. Treatment is accomplished via Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision with negative margins. Lymphadenectomy is indicated if regional lymph nodes are involved. Radiation and chemotherapy have been used in patients with metastatic and recurrent disease with mixed results.^1,3-5,7 There is no adequate standardized chemotherapy or drug regimen established for porocarcinoma.⁵ Tsunoda et al¹¹ proposed that sentinel lymph node biopsy should be considered first-line management of eccrine porocarcinoma; however, this remains unproven on the basis of a limited case series. Others conclude that sentinel lymph node biopsy should be recommended for cases with poor histologic prognostic features.^1,5

To the Editor:

Peer-reviewed publications are important determinants for promotions, academic leadership, and grants in dermatology.¹ The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology research productivity remains an area of investigation. We sought to determine authorship trends for males and females during the pandemic.

A cross-sectional retrospective study of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor and Google Scholar H5-index—was conducted to identify manuscripts with submission date specified prepandemic (May 1, 2019–October 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (May 1, 2020–October 31, 2020). Submission date, first/last author name, sex, and affiliated country were extracted. Single authors were designated as first authors. Gender API (https://gender-api.com/en/) classified gender. A χ² test (P<.05) compared differences in proportions of female first/last authors from 2019 to 2020.

Overall, 811 and 1061 articles submitted in 2019 and 2020, respectively, were included. There were 1517 articles submitted to clinical journals and 355 articles submitted to basic science journals (Table). For the 7 clinical journals included, there was a 7.7% decrease in the proportion of female last authors in 2020 vs 2019 (P=.002), with the largest decrease between August and September 2020. Although other comparisons did not yield statistically significant differences (P>.05 all)(Table), several trends were observed. For clinical journals, there was a 1.8% decrease in the proportion of female first authors. For the 4 basic science journals included, there was a 4.9% increase and a 0.3% decrease in percentages of female first and last authors, respectively, for 2020 vs 2019.

Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted female authors’ productivity in clinical dermatology publications. In a survey-based study for 2010 to 2011, female physician-researchers (n=437) spent 8.5 more hours per week on domestic activities and childcare and were more likely to take time off for childcare if their partner worked full time compared with males (n=612)(42.6% vs 12.4%, respectively).² Our observation that female last authors had a significant decrease in publications may suggest that this population had a disproportionate burden of domestic labor and childcare during the pandemic. It is possible that last authors, who generally are more senior researchers, may be more likely to have childcare, eldercare, and other types of domestic responsibilities. Similarly, in a study of surgery submissions (n=1068), there were 6%, 7%, and 4% decreases in percentages of female last, corresponding, and first authors, respectively, from 2019 to 2020.³Our study had limitations. Only 11 journals were analyzed because others did not have specified submission dates. Some journals only provided submission information for a subset of articles (eg, those published in the In Press section), which may have accounted for the large discrepancy in submission numbers for 2019 to 2020. Gender could not be determined for 1% of authors and was limited to female and male. Although our study submission time frame (May–October 2020) aimed at identifying research conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these studies may have been conducted months or years before the pandemic. Future studies should focus on longer and more comprehensive time frames. Finally, estimated dates of stay-at-home orders fail to consider differences within countries.

The proportion of female US-affiliated first and last authors publishing in dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% in 1976 and from 6% to 31% in 2006,⁴ which is encouraging. However, a gender gap persists, with one-third of National Institutes of Health grants in dermatology and one-fourth of research project grants in dermatology awarded to women.⁵ Consequences of the pandemic on academic productivity may include fewer women represented in higher academic ranks, lower compensation, and lower career satisfaction compared with men.¹ We urge academic institutions and funding agencies to recognize and take action to mitigate long-term sequelae. Extended grant end dates and submission periods, funding opportunities dedicated to women, and prioritization of female-authored submissions are some strategies that can safeguard equitable career progression in dermatology research.

To the Editor:

Peer-reviewed publications are important determinants for promotions, academic leadership, and grants in dermatology.¹ The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology research productivity remains an area of investigation. We sought to determine authorship trends for males and females during the pandemic.

A cross-sectional retrospective study of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor and Google Scholar H5-index—was conducted to identify manuscripts with submission date specified prepandemic (May 1, 2019–October 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (May 1, 2020–October 31, 2020). Submission date, first/last author name, sex, and affiliated country were extracted. Single authors were designated as first authors. Gender API (https://gender-api.com/en/) classified gender. A χ² test (P<.05) compared differences in proportions of female first/last authors from 2019 to 2020.

Overall, 811 and 1061 articles submitted in 2019 and 2020, respectively, were included. There were 1517 articles submitted to clinical journals and 355 articles submitted to basic science journals (Table). For the 7 clinical journals included, there was a 7.7% decrease in the proportion of female last authors in 2020 vs 2019 (P=.002), with the largest decrease between August and September 2020. Although other comparisons did not yield statistically significant differences (P>.05 all)(Table), several trends were observed. For clinical journals, there was a 1.8% decrease in the proportion of female first authors. For the 4 basic science journals included, there was a 4.9% increase and a 0.3% decrease in percentages of female first and last authors, respectively, for 2020 vs 2019.

Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted female authors’ productivity in clinical dermatology publications. In a survey-based study for 2010 to 2011, female physician-researchers (n=437) spent 8.5 more hours per week on domestic activities and childcare and were more likely to take time off for childcare if their partner worked full time compared with males (n=612)(42.6% vs 12.4%, respectively).² Our observation that female last authors had a significant decrease in publications may suggest that this population had a disproportionate burden of domestic labor and childcare during the pandemic. It is possible that last authors, who generally are more senior researchers, may be more likely to have childcare, eldercare, and other types of domestic responsibilities. Similarly, in a study of surgery submissions (n=1068), there were 6%, 7%, and 4% decreases in percentages of female last, corresponding, and first authors, respectively, from 2019 to 2020.³Our study had limitations. Only 11 journals were analyzed because others did not have specified submission dates. Some journals only provided submission information for a subset of articles (eg, those published in the In Press section), which may have accounted for the large discrepancy in submission numbers for 2019 to 2020. Gender could not be determined for 1% of authors and was limited to female and male. Although our study submission time frame (May–October 2020) aimed at identifying research conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these studies may have been conducted months or years before the pandemic. Future studies should focus on longer and more comprehensive time frames. Finally, estimated dates of stay-at-home orders fail to consider differences within countries.

The proportion of female US-affiliated first and last authors publishing in dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% in 1976 and from 6% to 31% in 2006,⁴ which is encouraging. However, a gender gap persists, with one-third of National Institutes of Health grants in dermatology and one-fourth of research project grants in dermatology awarded to women.⁵ Consequences of the pandemic on academic productivity may include fewer women represented in higher academic ranks, lower compensation, and lower career satisfaction compared with men.¹ We urge academic institutions and funding agencies to recognize and take action to mitigate long-term sequelae. Extended grant end dates and submission periods, funding opportunities dedicated to women, and prioritization of female-authored submissions are some strategies that can safeguard equitable career progression in dermatology research.

To the Editor:

Peer-reviewed publications are important determinants for promotions, academic leadership, and grants in dermatology.¹ The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology research productivity remains an area of investigation. We sought to determine authorship trends for males and females during the pandemic.

A cross-sectional retrospective study of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor and Google Scholar H5-index—was conducted to identify manuscripts with submission date specified prepandemic (May 1, 2019–October 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (May 1, 2020–October 31, 2020). Submission date, first/last author name, sex, and affiliated country were extracted. Single authors were designated as first authors. Gender API (https://gender-api.com/en/) classified gender. A χ² test (P<.05) compared differences in proportions of female first/last authors from 2019 to 2020.

Overall, 811 and 1061 articles submitted in 2019 and 2020, respectively, were included. There were 1517 articles submitted to clinical journals and 355 articles submitted to basic science journals (Table). For the 7 clinical journals included, there was a 7.7% decrease in the proportion of female last authors in 2020 vs 2019 (P=.002), with the largest decrease between August and September 2020. Although other comparisons did not yield statistically significant differences (P>.05 all)(Table), several trends were observed. For clinical journals, there was a 1.8% decrease in the proportion of female first authors. For the 4 basic science journals included, there was a 4.9% increase and a 0.3% decrease in percentages of female first and last authors, respectively, for 2020 vs 2019.

Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted female authors’ productivity in clinical dermatology publications. In a survey-based study for 2010 to 2011, female physician-researchers (n=437) spent 8.5 more hours per week on domestic activities and childcare and were more likely to take time off for childcare if their partner worked full time compared with males (n=612)(42.6% vs 12.4%, respectively).² Our observation that female last authors had a significant decrease in publications may suggest that this population had a disproportionate burden of domestic labor and childcare during the pandemic. It is possible that last authors, who generally are more senior researchers, may be more likely to have childcare, eldercare, and other types of domestic responsibilities. Similarly, in a study of surgery submissions (n=1068), there were 6%, 7%, and 4% decreases in percentages of female last, corresponding, and first authors, respectively, from 2019 to 2020.³Our study had limitations. Only 11 journals were analyzed because others did not have specified submission dates. Some journals only provided submission information for a subset of articles (eg, those published in the In Press section), which may have accounted for the large discrepancy in submission numbers for 2019 to 2020. Gender could not be determined for 1% of authors and was limited to female and male. Although our study submission time frame (May–October 2020) aimed at identifying research conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these studies may have been conducted months or years before the pandemic. Future studies should focus on longer and more comprehensive time frames. Finally, estimated dates of stay-at-home orders fail to consider differences within countries.

The proportion of female US-affiliated first and last authors publishing in dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% in 1976 and from 6% to 31% in 2006,⁴ which is encouraging. However, a gender gap persists, with one-third of National Institutes of Health grants in dermatology and one-fourth of research project grants in dermatology awarded to women.⁵ Consequences of the pandemic on academic productivity may include fewer women represented in higher academic ranks, lower compensation, and lower career satisfaction compared with men.¹ We urge academic institutions and funding agencies to recognize and take action to mitigate long-term sequelae. Extended grant end dates and submission periods, funding opportunities dedicated to women, and prioritization of female-authored submissions are some strategies that can safeguard equitable career progression in dermatology research.

Sweet syndrome (SS), also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, was first described in 1964. ¹ Since then, several subtypes of SS have been recognized, including classic or idiopathic, which typically follows an acute viral illness; cancer related, typically in the form of a paraneoplastic syndrome; and drug induced. ² Drug-induced SS is defined by the following: (1) an abrupt onset of painful erythematous plaques or nodules; (2) histopathologic evidence of a dense neutrophilic infiltrate without evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis; (3) pyrexia above 38 ° C; (4) temporal relationship between drug and clinical presentation or temporally related recurrence after rechallenge; and (5) temporally related resolution of lesions after drug withdrawal or treatment with systemic corticosteroids. ³ All 5 criteria must be met to make a diagnosis of drug-induced SS. Since these criteria were established by Walker and Cohen, ³ various drugs have been identified as causative agents, including antibiotics, antiepileptics, antiretrovirals, antineoplastic agents, antipsychotics, oral contraceptives, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and retinoids. ⁴ W e present a rare case of SS caused by dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody therapy, used in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma and atopic dermatitis.

Case Report

A 53-year-old woman presented with painful skin lesions, arthralgia, fever, and leukocytosis following initiation of dupilumab. She had a history of adult-onset, severe, persistent eosinophilic asthma, as well as chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, plaque psoriasis, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. She started mepolizumab 3 years prior to the current presentation for persistently uncontrolled asthma with a baseline peripheral eosinophil count of 860 cells/µL. After 3 years of minimal response to mepolizumab, she was started on dupilumab. Within 2 weeks of the first dose of dupilumab, she started experiencing bilateral knee pain. She subsequently developed daily fevers (temperature, 38.3 °C to 39.4 °C), fatigue, and pain in the back of the neck and head. After the second dose of dupilumab, she started experiencing painful skin lesions on the bilateral knuckles, elbows, and abdomen (Figure 1). She had difficulty using her hands and walking secondary to intense arthralgia involving the bilateral finger joints, elbows, and knees. Her primary care physician obtained a laboratory evaluation, which revealed an elevated total white blood cell count of 20×10³/mm³ (reference range, 4–11×10³/mm³) with 27.5% neutrophils and severely elevated eosinophils above her baseline to 57.3% with an absolute eosinophil count of 11,700 cells/µL (reference range, <400 cells/µL). Further assessment revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 64 mm/h (reference range, 0–30 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level of 34 mg/dL (reference range, ≤0.80 mg/dL), with negative antinuclear antibody, rheumatoid factor, antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody, and Lyme antibody. IgG, IgA, and IgM levels were within reference range, and the IgE level was not elevated above her baseline. She had normal serum tryptase, and a peripheral D816V c-KIT mutation was not detected. She was subsequently hospitalized for further evaluation, at which time there was no fever or localizing infectious signs or symptoms. An infectious evaluation including urinalysis; respiratory swab for adenovirus, coronaviruses, human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus, influenza A and B, parainfluenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Lyme serology; and a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis revealed no evidence of infection. A parasite evaluation was ordered but was not performed. There was no evidence of malignancy on CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis or CT of the head without contrast. A lumbar puncture was considered but was ultimately deferred.

At the current presentation, the patient was following up in the dermatology clinic shortly after discharge. The lesions on the fingers and arms were described by the dermatologist as deep, erythematous, 0.5-cm bullous papules. The differential diagnosis at this time included a cutaneous or systemic infection, vasculitis, drug eruption, or cutaneous manifestation of an autoimmune condition. A shave biopsy of a skin lesion on the right hand demonstrated epidermal necrosis with a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate consistent with a neutrophilic dermatosis (Figure 2). There was no evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. The histologic differential diagnosis included cutaneous infection, neutrophilic dermatosis of the hand, and SS. Special stains for infectious organisms including Gram, Grocott methenamine-silver, and auramine-rhodamine stains were negative for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial organisms, ruling out cutaneous infection. A diagnosis of drug-induced SS was made based on the histologic findings, diffuse distribution of the lesions, negative infectious evaluation, lack of underlying malignancy or autoimmune conditions, and onset following initiation of dupilumab.

Dupilumab was discontinued, and the patient was started on prednisone with rapid improvement in the symptoms. She underwent a slow taper of the prednisone over approximately 2 months with a slow downtrend of eosinophils. She was transitioned to a different biologic agent, benralizumab, with no further recurrence of the rash or arthralgia.

Comment

Dupilumab is a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling by binding to the IL-4Rα subunit. By blocking IL-4Rα, dupilumab inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 cytokine-induced inflammatory responses, including the release of proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines, nitric oxide, and IgE. Currently, dupilumab is approved to treat refractory forms of moderate to severe asthma characterized by an eosinophilic phenotype or with corticosteroid-dependent asthma, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. The most common adverse events (incidence ≥1%) are injection-site reactions, oropharyngeal pain, and eosinophilia.⁵ Interestingly, our patient did exhibit a high degree of eosinophilia; however, she met all criteria for drug-induced SS, and the skin biopsy was not consistent with an eosinophilic process. Notably, the peripheral neutrophils were not elevated. Neutrophilia often is seen in classic SS but is not required for a diagnosis of drug-induced SS. Rare cases of dupilumab-associated arthritis and serum sickness–like reaction have been described,^6-8 but our patient’s presentation was distinct, given other described signs, symptoms, and skin biopsy results. Histopathology results were not consistent with leukocytoclastic vasculitis, a potential mimicker of SS. Although the infectious and paraneoplastic evaluation was not exhaustive, the negative imaging from head to pelvis, the lack of recurrence of skin lesions, and the laboratory abnormalities after dupilumab discontinuation supported the conclusion that the culprit was not an infection or underlying malignancy. She had not started any other medications during this time frame, leaving dupilumab as the most likely offending agent. The mechanism for this reaction is not clear. It is possible that inhibition of IL-4 and IL-13 in the T helper 2 (T_H2) cell pathway may have led to upregulated IL-17–mediated inflammation⁹ as well as a neutrophilic process in the skin, but this would not explain the concurrent peripheral eosinophilia that was noted. Further studies are needed to investigate the pathophysiology of SS.

Conclusion

We report a rare case of dupilumab-induced SS. Corticosteroids accompanied by cessation of the medication proved to be an effective treatment. Prescribers must be aware of SS as a potential adverse reaction, as prompt recognition and treatment are needed.

Sweet syndrome (SS), also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, was first described in 1964. ¹ Since then, several subtypes of SS have been recognized, including classic or idiopathic, which typically follows an acute viral illness; cancer related, typically in the form of a paraneoplastic syndrome; and drug induced. ² Drug-induced SS is defined by the following: (1) an abrupt onset of painful erythematous plaques or nodules; (2) histopathologic evidence of a dense neutrophilic infiltrate without evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis; (3) pyrexia above 38 ° C; (4) temporal relationship between drug and clinical presentation or temporally related recurrence after rechallenge; and (5) temporally related resolution of lesions after drug withdrawal or treatment with systemic corticosteroids. ³ All 5 criteria must be met to make a diagnosis of drug-induced SS. Since these criteria were established by Walker and Cohen, ³ various drugs have been identified as causative agents, including antibiotics, antiepileptics, antiretrovirals, antineoplastic agents, antipsychotics, oral contraceptives, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and retinoids. ⁴ W e present a rare case of SS caused by dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody therapy, used in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma and atopic dermatitis.

Case Report

A 53-year-old woman presented with painful skin lesions, arthralgia, fever, and leukocytosis following initiation of dupilumab. She had a history of adult-onset, severe, persistent eosinophilic asthma, as well as chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, plaque psoriasis, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. She started mepolizumab 3 years prior to the current presentation for persistently uncontrolled asthma with a baseline peripheral eosinophil count of 860 cells/µL. After 3 years of minimal response to mepolizumab, she was started on dupilumab. Within 2 weeks of the first dose of dupilumab, she started experiencing bilateral knee pain. She subsequently developed daily fevers (temperature, 38.3 °C to 39.4 °C), fatigue, and pain in the back of the neck and head. After the second dose of dupilumab, she started experiencing painful skin lesions on the bilateral knuckles, elbows, and abdomen (Figure 1). She had difficulty using her hands and walking secondary to intense arthralgia involving the bilateral finger joints, elbows, and knees. Her primary care physician obtained a laboratory evaluation, which revealed an elevated total white blood cell count of 20×10³/mm³ (reference range, 4–11×10³/mm³) with 27.5% neutrophils and severely elevated eosinophils above her baseline to 57.3% with an absolute eosinophil count of 11,700 cells/µL (reference range, <400 cells/µL). Further assessment revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 64 mm/h (reference range, 0–30 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level of 34 mg/dL (reference range, ≤0.80 mg/dL), with negative antinuclear antibody, rheumatoid factor, antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody, and Lyme antibody. IgG, IgA, and IgM levels were within reference range, and the IgE level was not elevated above her baseline. She had normal serum tryptase, and a peripheral D816V c-KIT mutation was not detected. She was subsequently hospitalized for further evaluation, at which time there was no fever or localizing infectious signs or symptoms. An infectious evaluation including urinalysis; respiratory swab for adenovirus, coronaviruses, human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus, influenza A and B, parainfluenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Lyme serology; and a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis revealed no evidence of infection. A parasite evaluation was ordered but was not performed. There was no evidence of malignancy on CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis or CT of the head without contrast. A lumbar puncture was considered but was ultimately deferred.

At the current presentation, the patient was following up in the dermatology clinic shortly after discharge. The lesions on the fingers and arms were described by the dermatologist as deep, erythematous, 0.5-cm bullous papules. The differential diagnosis at this time included a cutaneous or systemic infection, vasculitis, drug eruption, or cutaneous manifestation of an autoimmune condition. A shave biopsy of a skin lesion on the right hand demonstrated epidermal necrosis with a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate consistent with a neutrophilic dermatosis (Figure 2). There was no evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. The histologic differential diagnosis included cutaneous infection, neutrophilic dermatosis of the hand, and SS. Special stains for infectious organisms including Gram, Grocott methenamine-silver, and auramine-rhodamine stains were negative for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial organisms, ruling out cutaneous infection. A diagnosis of drug-induced SS was made based on the histologic findings, diffuse distribution of the lesions, negative infectious evaluation, lack of underlying malignancy or autoimmune conditions, and onset following initiation of dupilumab.

Dupilumab was discontinued, and the patient was started on prednisone with rapid improvement in the symptoms. She underwent a slow taper of the prednisone over approximately 2 months with a slow downtrend of eosinophils. She was transitioned to a different biologic agent, benralizumab, with no further recurrence of the rash or arthralgia.

Comment

Dupilumab is a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling by binding to the IL-4Rα subunit. By blocking IL-4Rα, dupilumab inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 cytokine-induced inflammatory responses, including the release of proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines, nitric oxide, and IgE. Currently, dupilumab is approved to treat refractory forms of moderate to severe asthma characterized by an eosinophilic phenotype or with corticosteroid-dependent asthma, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. The most common adverse events (incidence ≥1%) are injection-site reactions, oropharyngeal pain, and eosinophilia.⁵ Interestingly, our patient did exhibit a high degree of eosinophilia; however, she met all criteria for drug-induced SS, and the skin biopsy was not consistent with an eosinophilic process. Notably, the peripheral neutrophils were not elevated. Neutrophilia often is seen in classic SS but is not required for a diagnosis of drug-induced SS. Rare cases of dupilumab-associated arthritis and serum sickness–like reaction have been described,^6-8 but our patient’s presentation was distinct, given other described signs, symptoms, and skin biopsy results. Histopathology results were not consistent with leukocytoclastic vasculitis, a potential mimicker of SS. Although the infectious and paraneoplastic evaluation was not exhaustive, the negative imaging from head to pelvis, the lack of recurrence of skin lesions, and the laboratory abnormalities after dupilumab discontinuation supported the conclusion that the culprit was not an infection or underlying malignancy. She had not started any other medications during this time frame, leaving dupilumab as the most likely offending agent. The mechanism for this reaction is not clear. It is possible that inhibition of IL-4 and IL-13 in the T helper 2 (T_H2) cell pathway may have led to upregulated IL-17–mediated inflammation⁹ as well as a neutrophilic process in the skin, but this would not explain the concurrent peripheral eosinophilia that was noted. Further studies are needed to investigate the pathophysiology of SS.

Conclusion

We report a rare case of dupilumab-induced SS. Corticosteroids accompanied by cessation of the medication proved to be an effective treatment. Prescribers must be aware of SS as a potential adverse reaction, as prompt recognition and treatment are needed.

Sweet syndrome (SS), also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, was first described in 1964. ¹ Since then, several subtypes of SS have been recognized, including classic or idiopathic, which typically follows an acute viral illness; cancer related, typically in the form of a paraneoplastic syndrome; and drug induced. ² Drug-induced SS is defined by the following: (1) an abrupt onset of painful erythematous plaques or nodules; (2) histopathologic evidence of a dense neutrophilic infiltrate without evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis; (3) pyrexia above 38 ° C; (4) temporal relationship between drug and clinical presentation or temporally related recurrence after rechallenge; and (5) temporally related resolution of lesions after drug withdrawal or treatment with systemic corticosteroids. ³ All 5 criteria must be met to make a diagnosis of drug-induced SS. Since these criteria were established by Walker and Cohen, ³ various drugs have been identified as causative agents, including antibiotics, antiepileptics, antiretrovirals, antineoplastic agents, antipsychotics, oral contraceptives, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and retinoids. ⁴ W e present a rare case of SS caused by dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody therapy, used in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma and atopic dermatitis.

Case Report

A 53-year-old woman presented with painful skin lesions, arthralgia, fever, and leukocytosis following initiation of dupilumab. She had a history of adult-onset, severe, persistent eosinophilic asthma, as well as chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, plaque psoriasis, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. She started mepolizumab 3 years prior to the current presentation for persistently uncontrolled asthma with a baseline peripheral eosinophil count of 860 cells/µL. After 3 years of minimal response to mepolizumab, she was started on dupilumab. Within 2 weeks of the first dose of dupilumab, she started experiencing bilateral knee pain. She subsequently developed daily fevers (temperature, 38.3 °C to 39.4 °C), fatigue, and pain in the back of the neck and head. After the second dose of dupilumab, she started experiencing painful skin lesions on the bilateral knuckles, elbows, and abdomen (Figure 1). She had difficulty using her hands and walking secondary to intense arthralgia involving the bilateral finger joints, elbows, and knees. Her primary care physician obtained a laboratory evaluation, which revealed an elevated total white blood cell count of 20×10³/mm³ (reference range, 4–11×10³/mm³) with 27.5% neutrophils and severely elevated eosinophils above her baseline to 57.3% with an absolute eosinophil count of 11,700 cells/µL (reference range, <400 cells/µL). Further assessment revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 64 mm/h (reference range, 0–30 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level of 34 mg/dL (reference range, ≤0.80 mg/dL), with negative antinuclear antibody, rheumatoid factor, antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody, and Lyme antibody. IgG, IgA, and IgM levels were within reference range, and the IgE level was not elevated above her baseline. She had normal serum tryptase, and a peripheral D816V c-KIT mutation was not detected. She was subsequently hospitalized for further evaluation, at which time there was no fever or localizing infectious signs or symptoms. An infectious evaluation including urinalysis; respiratory swab for adenovirus, coronaviruses, human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus, influenza A and B, parainfluenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Lyme serology; and a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis revealed no evidence of infection. A parasite evaluation was ordered but was not performed. There was no evidence of malignancy on CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis or CT of the head without contrast. A lumbar puncture was considered but was ultimately deferred.

At the current presentation, the patient was following up in the dermatology clinic shortly after discharge. The lesions on the fingers and arms were described by the dermatologist as deep, erythematous, 0.5-cm bullous papules. The differential diagnosis at this time included a cutaneous or systemic infection, vasculitis, drug eruption, or cutaneous manifestation of an autoimmune condition. A shave biopsy of a skin lesion on the right hand demonstrated epidermal necrosis with a dense dermal neutrophilic infiltrate consistent with a neutrophilic dermatosis (Figure 2). There was no evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. The histologic differential diagnosis included cutaneous infection, neutrophilic dermatosis of the hand, and SS. Special stains for infectious organisms including Gram, Grocott methenamine-silver, and auramine-rhodamine stains were negative for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial organisms, ruling out cutaneous infection. A diagnosis of drug-induced SS was made based on the histologic findings, diffuse distribution of the lesions, negative infectious evaluation, lack of underlying malignancy or autoimmune conditions, and onset following initiation of dupilumab.

Dupilumab was discontinued, and the patient was started on prednisone with rapid improvement in the symptoms. She underwent a slow taper of the prednisone over approximately 2 months with a slow downtrend of eosinophils. She was transitioned to a different biologic agent, benralizumab, with no further recurrence of the rash or arthralgia.

Comment

Dupilumab is a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling by binding to the IL-4Rα subunit. By blocking IL-4Rα, dupilumab inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 cytokine-induced inflammatory responses, including the release of proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines, nitric oxide, and IgE. Currently, dupilumab is approved to treat refractory forms of moderate to severe asthma characterized by an eosinophilic phenotype or with corticosteroid-dependent asthma, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. The most common adverse events (incidence ≥1%) are injection-site reactions, oropharyngeal pain, and eosinophilia.⁵ Interestingly, our patient did exhibit a high degree of eosinophilia; however, she met all criteria for drug-induced SS, and the skin biopsy was not consistent with an eosinophilic process. Notably, the peripheral neutrophils were not elevated. Neutrophilia often is seen in classic SS but is not required for a diagnosis of drug-induced SS. Rare cases of dupilumab-associated arthritis and serum sickness–like reaction have been described,^6-8 but our patient’s presentation was distinct, given other described signs, symptoms, and skin biopsy results. Histopathology results were not consistent with leukocytoclastic vasculitis, a potential mimicker of SS. Although the infectious and paraneoplastic evaluation was not exhaustive, the negative imaging from head to pelvis, the lack of recurrence of skin lesions, and the laboratory abnormalities after dupilumab discontinuation supported the conclusion that the culprit was not an infection or underlying malignancy. She had not started any other medications during this time frame, leaving dupilumab as the most likely offending agent. The mechanism for this reaction is not clear. It is possible that inhibition of IL-4 and IL-13 in the T helper 2 (T_H2) cell pathway may have led to upregulated IL-17–mediated inflammation⁹ as well as a neutrophilic process in the skin, but this would not explain the concurrent peripheral eosinophilia that was noted. Further studies are needed to investigate the pathophysiology of SS.

Conclusion

We report a rare case of dupilumab-induced SS. Corticosteroids accompanied by cessation of the medication proved to be an effective treatment. Prescribers must be aware of SS as a potential adverse reaction, as prompt recognition and treatment are needed.

Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.

This news organization recently sat down with three psychiatric experts to talk about the newest risk-reduction initiatives. These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery. 

These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
 

Our physician experts for this discussion

Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.

Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.

Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”

The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
 

The importance of peer support programs

Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.

Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.

Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters. 

Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.

Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.

Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.

Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents

This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.

Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’

Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.

Dr. Moutier:  It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.

So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.

It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?

And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
 

One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?

This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.

Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.

Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.

Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.

A buddy to check in with

This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.

Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.

A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
 

A platform or social media forum to share experiences

An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.

Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.

Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.

Interactive Screening Program

The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.

Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.

It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.

Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.

It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.

Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
 

The importance of confidentiality for physicians

In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.

Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.

When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help. 

The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)

Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.

Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.

Support for colleagues working to help each other

Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.

We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.

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

Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.

This news organization recently sat down with three psychiatric experts to talk about the newest risk-reduction initiatives. These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery. 

These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
 

Our physician experts for this discussion

Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.

Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.

Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”

The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
 

The importance of peer support programs

Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.

Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.

Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters. 

Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.

Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.

Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.

Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents

This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.

Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’

Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.

Dr. Moutier:  It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.

So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.

It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?

And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
 

One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?

This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.

Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.

Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.

Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.

A buddy to check in with

This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.

Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.

A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
 

A platform or social media forum to share experiences

An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.

Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.

Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.

Interactive Screening Program

The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.

Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.

It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.

Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.

It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.

Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
 

The importance of confidentiality for physicians

In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.

Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.

When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help. 

The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)

Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.

Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.

Support for colleagues working to help each other

Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.

We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.

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

Physician suicide continues to be a challenging problem in the United States. Each year, 1 in 10 doctors think about or attempt suicide, and 400 die by suicide each year. More than half of the doctors reading this know a colleague who has attempted or died by suicide.

This news organization recently sat down with three psychiatric experts to talk about the newest risk-reduction initiatives. These are part of a public health suicide prevention strategy, the preferred method for prevention, in hospitals and institutions around the country. A public health model for preventing suicide is a multifaceted approach that includes universal education, health promotion, selective and targeted prevention, and treatment and recovery. 

These physicians hope to continue creating and implementing these and other risk-reduction measures across all health care organizations.
 

Our physician experts for this discussion

Mary Moffit, PhD, is an associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She directs the resident and faculty wellness program and is director of the OHSU peer support program. She helped design and developed a comprehensive wellness program that is now a national model for academic medical centers.

Christine Yu Moutier, MD, is the chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She is the author of “Suicide Prevention,” a Cambridge University Press clinical handbook. She has been a practicing psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, dean in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, and medical director of the inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in La Jolla, Calif.

Michael F. Myers, MD, is a professor of clinical psychiatry in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the State University of New York, Brooklyn. He is recent past vice-chair of education and director of training in the department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the university. He is the author of several books, including “Why Physicians Die By Suicide,” “The Physician as Patient,” and “Touched by Suicide.”

The participants discussed these risk-reduction initiatives as having much potential for helping physicians at risk for suicide and suicidal ideations.
 

The importance of peer support programs

Peer support program models may differ across institutions but typically describe colleagues providing some degree of emotional first aid to peers who may be at risk.

Dr. Moffit: The Pew support program that we have in place at OHSU, similar to what’s available in many hospitals and systems nationwide, trains individual physicians across multiple specialties in a peer support model. It’s not specifically emotional first aid, although that’s integral to it. It’s also for adverse events: Having a tragic patient death, having learned that you will be named in a lawsuit, and exposure to trauma in the medical role.

Peer to peer is not where we anticipate physicians seeking someone to talk to about their marital relationship not going well. However, the peer supporter will know about resources throughout the university and the community for what is needed. We’ve got 20-30 peer supporters. We try to match them – for example, a surgeon with a surgeon, a primary care doc with a primary care doc. Physicians who use peer support aren’t tracked, and no notes are taken or documented. It takes place informally but has changed the culture and lowered a barrier. We have a waiting list of people who want to be peer supporters. 

Dr. Moutier: Peer-to-peer support is usually part of a multi-pronged program and is usually not the only effort going on. Depending on how they’re set up, the goals may be slightly different for each program. Peer-to-peer can be one of the most powerful ways to augment awareness raising and education, which is almost always a basic first step.

Dr. Myers: It doesn’t feel as threatening when people start in a peer-to-peer support group. Users may have been afraid of getting a mental health diagnosis, but with peers, many of whom are often not psychiatrists, that eases distress. Peer support can break down that sense of isolation and loneliness so that someone can take the next step.

Dr. Moutier: To be connected to family, to any community resource, frankly, is a protective factor that mitigates suicide risk. So that’s the logic model from a suicide prevention standpoint. It may be the only opportunity for someone to start disclosing what they’re experiencing, receive validation and support, and not a judgmental response. It can open up the avenue toward help-seeking.

Opt-in/opt-out support for medical residents

This initiative matches residents with a counselor as part of their orientation.

Dr. Moffit: Each resident has a meet and greet with a counselor when they arrive or in their first 6 months at their university. The resident can opt out and cancel the meeting, but they’re scheduled for it as part of their “curriculum.” Institutions like Michigan, Columbia, Montefiore, Mount Sinai, and the University of California, San Diego, have this in place. It starts something like: ‘Hello. Good afternoon. How’s it going? I’m Dr. Moffitt, and here are the services available in this program.’

Dr. Myers: It’s another excellent example of normalizing the stress in the rigors of training and making it part of the wellness initiative.

Dr. Moutier:  It’s just a normal part of orientation. Again, as a universal strategy, one thing that I was doing at UCSD with a particular group of medical students, who were at higher risk, was a postbaccalaureate program that found students from underrepresented, under-resourced backgrounds and brought them into this post-bacc year. I was directing it and mentoring these students.

So, I could afford a lot more intensive time and attention to them because it was a small group, but every one of them had regular meetings with me every 2 weeks. My approach was to help them uncover their unique strengths and vulnerabilities as they started this program. They all made it into med school.

It was a very intensive and more concierge-personalized approach. It’s like personalized medicine. What specific self-care, mentoring, and mental health care plan would each student codesign with me to stay on track?

And it would involve very holistic things, like if part of their vulnerability was that leaving their Chicano family was creating stress because their father had said: ‘You’re leaving our culture and our family by going into the profession of medicine,’ then we had specific plans around how to care for that aspect of their struggle. It was a much more informed, customized mentoring approach called the UCSD CAP (Conditional Acceptance Post-Baccalaureate Program). It could be a feature in a more specialized opt-in/opt-out program.
 

One-question survey: How full is your gas tank?

This initiative is a one-question survey emailed/texted to residents to check in on their wellness. We ask, how full is your gas tank? Select 1 to 5 (Empty to Full). If they flag low, they receive a follow-up.

Dr. Moffit: It’s certainly a metaphor that we use. It’s the idea of being depleted in combination with being extremely sleep deprived and the inability to access the usual sources of support or outlets, and how that can create a perfect storm of a level of distress that can put physicians at risk.

Dr. Moutier: It is a way to help people realize that there are things they can do proactively to keep that tank at least somewhat full enough.

Dr. Myers: Using colloquial or figurative language can get better buy-in than “Here’s a PHQ-9.” It also has a caring or intimate tone to it. Somebody could feel they’re a 1 in this rotation but a 4-5 the next. We know from a lot of the literature that when residents get a good, welcoming orientation, their satisfaction with that rotation is uniformly better than if they’re thrown to the wolves. And we know trial by fire can put trainees at risk.

A buddy to check in with

This initiative is when you’re assigned a buddy in or out of residency that you regularly check in with about how you’re doing.

Dr. Myers: Not to be cynical, but there has been some mentor/mentee research that if you’re assigned a mentor, the results are not nearly as good. And if it’s left to the individual to find a mentor, results could be marginal as well. You need a guide to say, ‘Here are some potential mentors for you, but you decide.’ We do a lot of that at (SUNY) Downstate instead of assigning a person. So, it may require some oversight. Picking a check-in buddy from a list provided rather than having one assigned may be more beneficial.

A lot of what we’re talking about are universal strategies that allow for increased interpersonal connection, which is a protective factor that normalizes help-seeking.
 

A platform or social media forum to share experiences

An online forum or platform where medical students, residents, and physicians can discuss mental health and suicide prevention. Physicians with personal experience could provide testimonials.

Dr. Myers: I’ve recently signed a book contract, and the working title is “Physicians With Lived Experience: How Their Stories Give Clinical Guidance.” When I talk with doctors who have published their personal stories in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or sometimes The Washington Post or The New York Times, many of them have said they had no idea at the beginning of their journey that they would do something like this: be transparent about their story. It’s a measure of their health, growth, and grace.

Dr. Moutier: The current president of the Academic Association of Surgeons, Carrie Cunningham, MD, MPH, used her platform at the annual AAS conference in 2022 to focus on suicide prevention. She told her own recent story of having gotten into recovery after having been near suicide and struggling with addiction. It was a groundbreaking moment for the field of surgery and produced a ripple effect. She risked everything to tell her story, which was highly emotional since it was still raw. It got everyone engaged, a real turning point for that field. Storytelling and a place for trainees to discuss suicide prevention, and physicians to recall their lived experiences can be highly beneficial.

Interactive Screening Program

The Interactive Screening Program (ISP) is used in higher education to allow physicians to take a safe, confidential screening test and receive a personalized response that can connect them to mental health services before a crisis emerges.

Dr. Moutier: ISP is a tool within a public health model that can afford anonymity to the user so they can safely have their needs addressed. It’s a way for high-risk individuals to sync up with treatment and support. It’s sometimes used in the universal approach because it can be offered to everyone within the health system community of physicians and staff.

It can produce a ripple effect of normalizing that we all have mental health to take care of. Its intended value is in identifying those with a higher risk for suicide, but it doesn’t stop at identifying those at risk. It helps physicians move past a stage of suffering in silence.

Our data show that 86% of a very high-risk group (currently having suicidal ideation, a recent attempt, or other high-risk factors for suicide) aren’t in any form of treatment and have not disclosed their situation to anyone. A fairly high percentage of those going through ISP request a referral to treatment. It’s a unique, very niche tool, and because users remain anonymous, that affords safety around confidentiality.

It’s usually part of a multipronged approach with education, stigma reduction, storytelling, peer support, and other modalities. In my experience with the UCSD HEAR (Healer Assessment Education and Recovery) program, which is still going strong in about its 15th year, the program went from seeing 13 physicians die by suicide in the years leading up to its launch and in the 15 years since it’s been going, one suicide. We all believe that the ISP is the heart of prevention.

Even though all of the universal strategies are important, they probably wouldn’t be sufficient by themselves because the risk [for suicide] is dynamic, and you have to catch people when they are suffering and ready to seek treatment. Suicide prevention is challenging and must be strategic, multifaceted, and sustained over time.
 

The importance of confidentiality for physicians

In the past, physicians may have been hesitant to seek treatment when struggling with mental health, substance use disorder and suicidal ideations because they heard stories from doctors who said they had to disclose mental health treatment to medical and state licensing boards.

Dr. Myers: There is so much dated stuff out there, and it gets propagated by people who have had a bad experience. I’m not challenging the authenticity of that, but I feel like those are in the minority. The vast majority of people are seeking help. The Federation of State Physician Health Programs is working with state boards to update and get rid of antiquated questions, and they’re working with credentialing groups.

When I was in practice and my patient was petrified of having to come into the hospital [because of confidentiality] I would just be their physician and say: “Look, I know that this is a worry for you [licensing and credentialing issues] but trust me, I’m going to help you get well; that’s my job. And I’m going to help you sort all that out afterward.” It was part of my work as their physician that if they were going to have to jump through hurdles to get their license reinstated, etc., I could help. 

The Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation is also doing so much good work in this area, especially with their toolkits to audit, change, remove, and communicate the changes about intrusive language in licensing applications and credentialing. (Dr. Breen was a New York City ED physician who died by suicide in April 2020 during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her father was quoted as saying: “She was in the trenches. She was a hero.”)

Dr. Moutier: We’re seeing hundreds of physicians get therapy and psychiatric treatment annually. And the advocacy effort is incredibly important, and I think we are witnessing a swifter pace to eliminate those inappropriate and illegal questions about mental health and mental health treatment for physicians and nurses.

Dr. Moffit: We have lowered barriers, not only in individual institutions but also with programming. We have also worked with the Federation of State Medical Boards and The Lorna Breen Foundation to change the legislation. The Foundation has audited and changed 20 state medical boards to remove intrusive language from licensing applications.

Support for colleagues working to help each other

Dr. Myers: One final note for those physicians who need to take time out for medical leave: In my clinical experience, I find that they felt lonely as they were getting well. I can’t tell you how much it made a difference for those who received a phone call, a card, or an email from their colleagues at work. It doesn’t take long for a vibrant, active physician to feel out of the loop when ill.

We know from suicide literature that when somebody’s discharged from the hospital or the emergency department, caring communications, brief expressions of care and concern by email, letter, card, text message, etc., can make all the difference to their recovery. Reaching out to those struggling and those in recovery can help your fellow physician.

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

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with a pruritic weeping eruption circumferentially on the distal digits of both hands of 5 weeks’ duration. The patient disclosed that she had been receiving dip powder manicures at a local nail salon approximately every 2 weeks over the last 3 to 6 months. She had received frequent acrylic nail extensions over the last 8 years prior to starting the dip powder manicures. Physical examination revealed well-demarcated eczematous plaques involving the lateral and proximal nail folds of the right thumb with an overlying serous crust and loss of the cuticle (Figure 1A). Erythematous plaques with firm deep-seated microvesicles also were present on the other digits, distributed distal to the distal interphalangeal joints (Figure 1B). She was diagnosed with dyshidroticlike contact dermatitis and paronychia. Treatment included phenol 1.5% colorless solution and clobetasol ointment 0.05% for twice-daily application to the affected areas. The patient also was advised to stop receiving manicures. At 1-month follow-up, the paronychia had resolved and the dermatitis had nearly resolved.

Dip powder manicures use a wet adhesive base coat with acrylic powder and an activator topcoat to initiate a chemical reaction that hardens and sets the nail polish. The colored powder typically is applied by dipping the digit up to the distal interphalangeal joint into a small container of loose powder and then brushing away the excess (Figure 2). Acrylate, a chemical present in dip powders, is a known allergen and has been associated with the development of allergic contact dermatitis and onychodystrophy in patients after receiving acrylic and UV-cured gel polish manicures.^1,2 Inadequate sanitation practices at nail salons also have been associated with infection transmission.^3,4 Additionally, the news media has covered the potential risk of infection due to contamination from reused dip manicure powder and the use of communal powder containers.⁵

To increase clinical awareness of the dip manicure technique, we describe the presentation and successful treatment of dyshidroticlike contact dermatitis and paronychia that occurred in a patient after she received a dip powder manicure. Dermatoses and infection limited to the distal phalanges will present in patients more frequently as dip powder manicures continue to increase in popularity and frequency.

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with a pruritic weeping eruption circumferentially on the distal digits of both hands of 5 weeks’ duration. The patient disclosed that she had been receiving dip powder manicures at a local nail salon approximately every 2 weeks over the last 3 to 6 months. She had received frequent acrylic nail extensions over the last 8 years prior to starting the dip powder manicures. Physical examination revealed well-demarcated eczematous plaques involving the lateral and proximal nail folds of the right thumb with an overlying serous crust and loss of the cuticle (Figure 1A). Erythematous plaques with firm deep-seated microvesicles also were present on the other digits, distributed distal to the distal interphalangeal joints (Figure 1B). She was diagnosed with dyshidroticlike contact dermatitis and paronychia. Treatment included phenol 1.5% colorless solution and clobetasol ointment 0.05% for twice-daily application to the affected areas. The patient also was advised to stop receiving manicures. At 1-month follow-up, the paronychia had resolved and the dermatitis had nearly resolved.

Dip powder manicures use a wet adhesive base coat with acrylic powder and an activator topcoat to initiate a chemical reaction that hardens and sets the nail polish. The colored powder typically is applied by dipping the digit up to the distal interphalangeal joint into a small container of loose powder and then brushing away the excess (Figure 2). Acrylate, a chemical present in dip powders, is a known allergen and has been associated with the development of allergic contact dermatitis and onychodystrophy in patients after receiving acrylic and UV-cured gel polish manicures.^1,2 Inadequate sanitation practices at nail salons also have been associated with infection transmission.^3,4 Additionally, the news media has covered the potential risk of infection due to contamination from reused dip manicure powder and the use of communal powder containers.⁵

To increase clinical awareness of the dip manicure technique, we describe the presentation and successful treatment of dyshidroticlike contact dermatitis and paronychia that occurred in a patient after she received a dip powder manicure. Dermatoses and infection limited to the distal phalanges will present in patients more frequently as dip powder manicures continue to increase in popularity and frequency.

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with a pruritic weeping eruption circumferentially on the distal digits of both hands of 5 weeks’ duration. The patient disclosed that she had been receiving dip powder manicures at a local nail salon approximately every 2 weeks over the last 3 to 6 months. She had received frequent acrylic nail extensions over the last 8 years prior to starting the dip powder manicures. Physical examination revealed well-demarcated eczematous plaques involving the lateral and proximal nail folds of the right thumb with an overlying serous crust and loss of the cuticle (Figure 1A). Erythematous plaques with firm deep-seated microvesicles also were present on the other digits, distributed distal to the distal interphalangeal joints (Figure 1B). She was diagnosed with dyshidroticlike contact dermatitis and paronychia. Treatment included phenol 1.5% colorless solution and clobetasol ointment 0.05% for twice-daily application to the affected areas. The patient also was advised to stop receiving manicures. At 1-month follow-up, the paronychia had resolved and the dermatitis had nearly resolved.

Dip powder manicures use a wet adhesive base coat with acrylic powder and an activator topcoat to initiate a chemical reaction that hardens and sets the nail polish. The colored powder typically is applied by dipping the digit up to the distal interphalangeal joint into a small container of loose powder and then brushing away the excess (Figure 2). Acrylate, a chemical present in dip powders, is a known allergen and has been associated with the development of allergic contact dermatitis and onychodystrophy in patients after receiving acrylic and UV-cured gel polish manicures.^1,2 Inadequate sanitation practices at nail salons also have been associated with infection transmission.^3,4 Additionally, the news media has covered the potential risk of infection due to contamination from reused dip manicure powder and the use of communal powder containers.⁵

To increase clinical awareness of the dip manicure technique, we describe the presentation and successful treatment of dyshidroticlike contact dermatitis and paronychia that occurred in a patient after she received a dip powder manicure. Dermatoses and infection limited to the distal phalanges will present in patients more frequently as dip powder manicures continue to increase in popularity and frequency.

In the absence of a formal diagnostic test for Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), the current approach employed by most clinicians tends to overlabel patients as allergic to drugs that are unlikely to be the cause, results from a small retrospective cohort study demonstrated.

“Prompt identification and discontinuation of a culprit drug is critical to improving patient outcomes and preventing recurrence,” researchers led by Sherrie J. Divito, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Identification is difficult because there is no laboratory test or other criterion standard (in the absence of rechallenge) to identify a culprit drug, and patients take on average six medications at the time of their reaction. Consequently, many patients may be labeled as allergic to multiple agents.”

Although failing to identify the culprit drug can have severe consequences, they added, “overlabeling” (labeling a patient as allergic to a drug or drugs that they can tolerate safely) “is not insignificant.” As a result of overlabeling, “the patient may receive a less efficacious, more toxic, and/or more expensive agent than necessary, and in some cases may be left without treatment for their underlying disease.”

To evaluate the outcomes of patients’ allergy lists, current approaches to identify culprit drugs such as the Algorithm for Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN), which was published in 2010, and potential methods of improving culprit drug identification, the researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of 48 patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, with clinically and histologically confirmed cases of SJS/TEN between January 2000 and July 2018. Of the 48 patients, 26 had SJS/TEN overlap and 22 had TEN. Their median age at diagnosis was 40 years; 60.4% were female; and 52.1% were white, 12.5% were Black, 10.4% were Hispanic, and 8.3% were Asian. They took a median of 6.5 drugs in the 3 months prior to disease onset.

The researchers observed that all patients had at least one drug labeled as an allergy. A single culprit drug was labeled in 17 cases, but physicians communicated certainty in only 7 of those cases. Among all 48 patients, 104 drugs were labeled as allergies.

To identify a culprit drug, physicians appeared to mainly rely on two factors: drug notoriety and timing of exposure, compared with the onset of SJS/TEN. “Identifying high-risk medications seemed heuristic, with one or more drugs in question noted in the record as a common culprit without reference to published or vetted data regarding risk,” the researchers wrote. “Regarding timing, drug charts when present in medical records were incomplete, as they focused predominantly on high-notoriety drugs.”

In other findings, ALDEN scoring was discordant with physician-labeled lists in 28 cases. It labeled an additional 9 drugs missed by physicians and scored 43 drugs labeled as allergens by physicians as “unlikely.” The researchers also reported that 20 cases could have potentially benefited from human leukocyte antigen testing.

Their results “underscore the need for a laboratory test to identify culprit drugs,” but without such a test, “a systematic unbiased approach, such as ALDEN or the RegiSCAR database, with possibly HLA testing, should be considered to ensure the true culprit drug is not missed and exonerate as many nonculprit drugs as possible,” Dr. Divito and colleagues concluded.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and that many cases predated research advances in the topic area that took place during the 18-year study period.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “are consistent with clinical practice in that drug causality is usually determined by ‘gestalt’ rather than objective tools like the ALDEN algorithm.”

“The main limitation is the small size, which suggests the study sites are low-volume centers for SJS/TEN. The fact that the ALDEN score wasn’t developed until 2010 means that all the cases included prior to 2010 would not have applied the ALDEN algorithm, so I think the metric about how infrequently ALDEN was applied is not very meaningful.”

Still, he said that he was “surprised” by the number of medications that were added as allergies based on clinical impression, “and I’m glad this article does cast some light on the issue. In my experience, beta-lactam antibiotics are often – incorrectly – deemed to be the cause of SJS/TEN when further review of the patient’s medication history clearly shows they have tolerated these drugs multiple times in the past.”

Since 2000, he added, “our understanding of SJS/TEN has grown substantially including the identification of MIRM [mycoplasma-induced rash and mucositis]/RIME [reactive infections mucocutaneous eruptions] and GBFDE [generalized bullous fixed drug eruption] as mimickers.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was also asked to comment on the study, agreed that a limitation of the study is that it partially preceded development of the unbiased approaches to determining the cause of a medication reaction, such as the ALDEN system. “A strength of this study is the examination of heuristics in dermatology and how they relate to patient safety,” she added.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, a Dermatology Foundation Diversity Research Supplement Award, and by the German Research Foundation. Dr. Divito reported receiving personal fees from Adaptimmune and MEI Pharma and a provisional patent issued from Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Neither Dr. Saardi nor Dr. Ko reported having relevant disclosures.

In the absence of a formal diagnostic test for Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), the current approach employed by most clinicians tends to overlabel patients as allergic to drugs that are unlikely to be the cause, results from a small retrospective cohort study demonstrated.

“Prompt identification and discontinuation of a culprit drug is critical to improving patient outcomes and preventing recurrence,” researchers led by Sherrie J. Divito, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Identification is difficult because there is no laboratory test or other criterion standard (in the absence of rechallenge) to identify a culprit drug, and patients take on average six medications at the time of their reaction. Consequently, many patients may be labeled as allergic to multiple agents.”

Although failing to identify the culprit drug can have severe consequences, they added, “overlabeling” (labeling a patient as allergic to a drug or drugs that they can tolerate safely) “is not insignificant.” As a result of overlabeling, “the patient may receive a less efficacious, more toxic, and/or more expensive agent than necessary, and in some cases may be left without treatment for their underlying disease.”

To evaluate the outcomes of patients’ allergy lists, current approaches to identify culprit drugs such as the Algorithm for Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN), which was published in 2010, and potential methods of improving culprit drug identification, the researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of 48 patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, with clinically and histologically confirmed cases of SJS/TEN between January 2000 and July 2018. Of the 48 patients, 26 had SJS/TEN overlap and 22 had TEN. Their median age at diagnosis was 40 years; 60.4% were female; and 52.1% were white, 12.5% were Black, 10.4% were Hispanic, and 8.3% were Asian. They took a median of 6.5 drugs in the 3 months prior to disease onset.

The researchers observed that all patients had at least one drug labeled as an allergy. A single culprit drug was labeled in 17 cases, but physicians communicated certainty in only 7 of those cases. Among all 48 patients, 104 drugs were labeled as allergies.

To identify a culprit drug, physicians appeared to mainly rely on two factors: drug notoriety and timing of exposure, compared with the onset of SJS/TEN. “Identifying high-risk medications seemed heuristic, with one or more drugs in question noted in the record as a common culprit without reference to published or vetted data regarding risk,” the researchers wrote. “Regarding timing, drug charts when present in medical records were incomplete, as they focused predominantly on high-notoriety drugs.”

In other findings, ALDEN scoring was discordant with physician-labeled lists in 28 cases. It labeled an additional 9 drugs missed by physicians and scored 43 drugs labeled as allergens by physicians as “unlikely.” The researchers also reported that 20 cases could have potentially benefited from human leukocyte antigen testing.

Their results “underscore the need for a laboratory test to identify culprit drugs,” but without such a test, “a systematic unbiased approach, such as ALDEN or the RegiSCAR database, with possibly HLA testing, should be considered to ensure the true culprit drug is not missed and exonerate as many nonculprit drugs as possible,” Dr. Divito and colleagues concluded.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and that many cases predated research advances in the topic area that took place during the 18-year study period.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “are consistent with clinical practice in that drug causality is usually determined by ‘gestalt’ rather than objective tools like the ALDEN algorithm.”

“The main limitation is the small size, which suggests the study sites are low-volume centers for SJS/TEN. The fact that the ALDEN score wasn’t developed until 2010 means that all the cases included prior to 2010 would not have applied the ALDEN algorithm, so I think the metric about how infrequently ALDEN was applied is not very meaningful.”

Still, he said that he was “surprised” by the number of medications that were added as allergies based on clinical impression, “and I’m glad this article does cast some light on the issue. In my experience, beta-lactam antibiotics are often – incorrectly – deemed to be the cause of SJS/TEN when further review of the patient’s medication history clearly shows they have tolerated these drugs multiple times in the past.”

Since 2000, he added, “our understanding of SJS/TEN has grown substantially including the identification of MIRM [mycoplasma-induced rash and mucositis]/RIME [reactive infections mucocutaneous eruptions] and GBFDE [generalized bullous fixed drug eruption] as mimickers.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was also asked to comment on the study, agreed that a limitation of the study is that it partially preceded development of the unbiased approaches to determining the cause of a medication reaction, such as the ALDEN system. “A strength of this study is the examination of heuristics in dermatology and how they relate to patient safety,” she added.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, a Dermatology Foundation Diversity Research Supplement Award, and by the German Research Foundation. Dr. Divito reported receiving personal fees from Adaptimmune and MEI Pharma and a provisional patent issued from Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Neither Dr. Saardi nor Dr. Ko reported having relevant disclosures.

In the absence of a formal diagnostic test for Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), the current approach employed by most clinicians tends to overlabel patients as allergic to drugs that are unlikely to be the cause, results from a small retrospective cohort study demonstrated.

“Prompt identification and discontinuation of a culprit drug is critical to improving patient outcomes and preventing recurrence,” researchers led by Sherrie J. Divito, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Identification is difficult because there is no laboratory test or other criterion standard (in the absence of rechallenge) to identify a culprit drug, and patients take on average six medications at the time of their reaction. Consequently, many patients may be labeled as allergic to multiple agents.”

Although failing to identify the culprit drug can have severe consequences, they added, “overlabeling” (labeling a patient as allergic to a drug or drugs that they can tolerate safely) “is not insignificant.” As a result of overlabeling, “the patient may receive a less efficacious, more toxic, and/or more expensive agent than necessary, and in some cases may be left without treatment for their underlying disease.”

To evaluate the outcomes of patients’ allergy lists, current approaches to identify culprit drugs such as the Algorithm for Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN), which was published in 2010, and potential methods of improving culprit drug identification, the researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of 48 patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, with clinically and histologically confirmed cases of SJS/TEN between January 2000 and July 2018. Of the 48 patients, 26 had SJS/TEN overlap and 22 had TEN. Their median age at diagnosis was 40 years; 60.4% were female; and 52.1% were white, 12.5% were Black, 10.4% were Hispanic, and 8.3% were Asian. They took a median of 6.5 drugs in the 3 months prior to disease onset.

The researchers observed that all patients had at least one drug labeled as an allergy. A single culprit drug was labeled in 17 cases, but physicians communicated certainty in only 7 of those cases. Among all 48 patients, 104 drugs were labeled as allergies.

To identify a culprit drug, physicians appeared to mainly rely on two factors: drug notoriety and timing of exposure, compared with the onset of SJS/TEN. “Identifying high-risk medications seemed heuristic, with one or more drugs in question noted in the record as a common culprit without reference to published or vetted data regarding risk,” the researchers wrote. “Regarding timing, drug charts when present in medical records were incomplete, as they focused predominantly on high-notoriety drugs.”

In other findings, ALDEN scoring was discordant with physician-labeled lists in 28 cases. It labeled an additional 9 drugs missed by physicians and scored 43 drugs labeled as allergens by physicians as “unlikely.” The researchers also reported that 20 cases could have potentially benefited from human leukocyte antigen testing.

Their results “underscore the need for a laboratory test to identify culprit drugs,” but without such a test, “a systematic unbiased approach, such as ALDEN or the RegiSCAR database, with possibly HLA testing, should be considered to ensure the true culprit drug is not missed and exonerate as many nonculprit drugs as possible,” Dr. Divito and colleagues concluded.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and that many cases predated research advances in the topic area that took place during the 18-year study period.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “are consistent with clinical practice in that drug causality is usually determined by ‘gestalt’ rather than objective tools like the ALDEN algorithm.”

“The main limitation is the small size, which suggests the study sites are low-volume centers for SJS/TEN. The fact that the ALDEN score wasn’t developed until 2010 means that all the cases included prior to 2010 would not have applied the ALDEN algorithm, so I think the metric about how infrequently ALDEN was applied is not very meaningful.”

Still, he said that he was “surprised” by the number of medications that were added as allergies based on clinical impression, “and I’m glad this article does cast some light on the issue. In my experience, beta-lactam antibiotics are often – incorrectly – deemed to be the cause of SJS/TEN when further review of the patient’s medication history clearly shows they have tolerated these drugs multiple times in the past.”

Since 2000, he added, “our understanding of SJS/TEN has grown substantially including the identification of MIRM [mycoplasma-induced rash and mucositis]/RIME [reactive infections mucocutaneous eruptions] and GBFDE [generalized bullous fixed drug eruption] as mimickers.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was also asked to comment on the study, agreed that a limitation of the study is that it partially preceded development of the unbiased approaches to determining the cause of a medication reaction, such as the ALDEN system. “A strength of this study is the examination of heuristics in dermatology and how they relate to patient safety,” she added.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, a Dermatology Foundation Diversity Research Supplement Award, and by the German Research Foundation. Dr. Divito reported receiving personal fees from Adaptimmune and MEI Pharma and a provisional patent issued from Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Neither Dr. Saardi nor Dr. Ko reported having relevant disclosures.