MDedge Dermatology

Recently,  the results of a survey of consumers regarding their health care experiences were reported by Carta Healthcare. As you might expect, a top complaint about doctors was time spent waiting to see them; 23% said they waited 30 minutes or longer. I’ve written about punctuality before, but this is such a ubiquitous problem that it bears repeating. Here are some suggestions:

Start on time. That seems obvious, but I’m always amazed at the number of doctors who admit to running late who also admit that they start late. If you’re in the hole before you even start, you can seldom dig yourself out. Sometimes an on-time start is the solution to the entire problem! If you doubt me, try it.

Book realistically. Everyone works at a different pace. Determine the number of patients you can comfortably see in an hour, and book only that number. If you want to see more patients, the solution is working longer hours or hiring physicians or physician extenders (or both), not overloading your schedule.

Time-stamp each chart. Pay attention to patient arrival times if your EHR records them, and step up your pace if you start to fall behind. If your EHR does not record arrival times or you are still using paper records, buy a time clock and have your receptionist time-stamp the “encounter form” that goes to the back with the patient. One glance at the stamp will tell you exactly how long that patient has been waiting.

Schedule all surgeries. If you haven’t scheduled the time necessary for a surgical procedure, don’t do it. It’s frequently tempting to “squeeze in” an excision, often because you feel guilty that the patient has already had to wait for you. But every unscheduled surgery puts you that much further behind. And hurrying through a procedure increases the risk of mistakes. Tell the patient that surgery requires extra time and it can’t be rushed, so you will have to schedule that time.

Work-ins come last, not first. Patients with urgent problems should be seen after scheduled patients. That may seem counterintuitive; receptionists often assume it’s better to squeeze them in early, while you’re still running on time. But doing that guarantees you will run late, and it isn’t fair to patients who have appointments and expect to be seen promptly.

Work-ins, on the other hand, expect a wait because they have no appointment. We tell them, “Our schedule is full today; but if you come at the end of hours, the doctor will see you. But you may have a wait.” Far from complaining, they invariably thank us for seeing them.

Seize the list. You know the list I mean. “Number 16: My right big toe itches. Number 17: I think I feel something on my back. Number 18: This weird chartreuse thing on my arm ...” One long list can leave an entire half-day schedule in shambles.

When a list is produced, the best option is to take it and read it yourself. Identify the most important two or three problems, and address them. For the rest, I will say, “This group of problems deserves a visit of its own, and we will schedule that visit.”

Ask if you can place the list (or a photocopy) in the patient’s chart. (It is, after all, important clinical information.) All of these problems are important to the patient and should be addressed – but on your schedule, not the patient’s.

Avoid interruptions. Especially phone calls. Unless it’s an emergency or an immediate family member, my receptionists say, “I’m sorry, the doctor is with patients. May I take a message?” Everyone – even other physicians – understands. But be sure to return those calls promptly.

Pharmaceutical reps should not be allowed to interrupt you, either. Have them make an appointment, just like everybody else.

There will be times, of course, when you run late. But these should be the exception rather than the rule. By streamlining your procedures and avoiding the pitfalls mentioned, you can give nearly every patient all the time he or she deserves without keeping the next patient waiting.

Incidentally, other common patient complaints in that survey were the following:

• Couldn’t schedule an appointment within a week.
• Spent too little time with me.
• Didn’t provide test results promptly.
• Didn’t respond to my phone calls promptly.

Now would be an excellent opportunity to identify and address any of those problems as well.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Recently,  the results of a survey of consumers regarding their health care experiences were reported by Carta Healthcare. As you might expect, a top complaint about doctors was time spent waiting to see them; 23% said they waited 30 minutes or longer. I’ve written about punctuality before, but this is such a ubiquitous problem that it bears repeating. Here are some suggestions:

Start on time. That seems obvious, but I’m always amazed at the number of doctors who admit to running late who also admit that they start late. If you’re in the hole before you even start, you can seldom dig yourself out. Sometimes an on-time start is the solution to the entire problem! If you doubt me, try it.

Book realistically. Everyone works at a different pace. Determine the number of patients you can comfortably see in an hour, and book only that number. If you want to see more patients, the solution is working longer hours or hiring physicians or physician extenders (or both), not overloading your schedule.

Time-stamp each chart. Pay attention to patient arrival times if your EHR records them, and step up your pace if you start to fall behind. If your EHR does not record arrival times or you are still using paper records, buy a time clock and have your receptionist time-stamp the “encounter form” that goes to the back with the patient. One glance at the stamp will tell you exactly how long that patient has been waiting.

Schedule all surgeries. If you haven’t scheduled the time necessary for a surgical procedure, don’t do it. It’s frequently tempting to “squeeze in” an excision, often because you feel guilty that the patient has already had to wait for you. But every unscheduled surgery puts you that much further behind. And hurrying through a procedure increases the risk of mistakes. Tell the patient that surgery requires extra time and it can’t be rushed, so you will have to schedule that time.

Work-ins come last, not first. Patients with urgent problems should be seen after scheduled patients. That may seem counterintuitive; receptionists often assume it’s better to squeeze them in early, while you’re still running on time. But doing that guarantees you will run late, and it isn’t fair to patients who have appointments and expect to be seen promptly.

Work-ins, on the other hand, expect a wait because they have no appointment. We tell them, “Our schedule is full today; but if you come at the end of hours, the doctor will see you. But you may have a wait.” Far from complaining, they invariably thank us for seeing them.

Seize the list. You know the list I mean. “Number 16: My right big toe itches. Number 17: I think I feel something on my back. Number 18: This weird chartreuse thing on my arm ...” One long list can leave an entire half-day schedule in shambles.

When a list is produced, the best option is to take it and read it yourself. Identify the most important two or three problems, and address them. For the rest, I will say, “This group of problems deserves a visit of its own, and we will schedule that visit.”

Ask if you can place the list (or a photocopy) in the patient’s chart. (It is, after all, important clinical information.) All of these problems are important to the patient and should be addressed – but on your schedule, not the patient’s.

Avoid interruptions. Especially phone calls. Unless it’s an emergency or an immediate family member, my receptionists say, “I’m sorry, the doctor is with patients. May I take a message?” Everyone – even other physicians – understands. But be sure to return those calls promptly.

Pharmaceutical reps should not be allowed to interrupt you, either. Have them make an appointment, just like everybody else.

There will be times, of course, when you run late. But these should be the exception rather than the rule. By streamlining your procedures and avoiding the pitfalls mentioned, you can give nearly every patient all the time he or she deserves without keeping the next patient waiting.

Incidentally, other common patient complaints in that survey were the following:

• Couldn’t schedule an appointment within a week.
• Spent too little time with me.
• Didn’t provide test results promptly.
• Didn’t respond to my phone calls promptly.

Now would be an excellent opportunity to identify and address any of those problems as well.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Recently,  the results of a survey of consumers regarding their health care experiences were reported by Carta Healthcare. As you might expect, a top complaint about doctors was time spent waiting to see them; 23% said they waited 30 minutes or longer. I’ve written about punctuality before, but this is such a ubiquitous problem that it bears repeating. Here are some suggestions:

Start on time. That seems obvious, but I’m always amazed at the number of doctors who admit to running late who also admit that they start late. If you’re in the hole before you even start, you can seldom dig yourself out. Sometimes an on-time start is the solution to the entire problem! If you doubt me, try it.

Book realistically. Everyone works at a different pace. Determine the number of patients you can comfortably see in an hour, and book only that number. If you want to see more patients, the solution is working longer hours or hiring physicians or physician extenders (or both), not overloading your schedule.

Time-stamp each chart. Pay attention to patient arrival times if your EHR records them, and step up your pace if you start to fall behind. If your EHR does not record arrival times or you are still using paper records, buy a time clock and have your receptionist time-stamp the “encounter form” that goes to the back with the patient. One glance at the stamp will tell you exactly how long that patient has been waiting.

Schedule all surgeries. If you haven’t scheduled the time necessary for a surgical procedure, don’t do it. It’s frequently tempting to “squeeze in” an excision, often because you feel guilty that the patient has already had to wait for you. But every unscheduled surgery puts you that much further behind. And hurrying through a procedure increases the risk of mistakes. Tell the patient that surgery requires extra time and it can’t be rushed, so you will have to schedule that time.

Work-ins come last, not first. Patients with urgent problems should be seen after scheduled patients. That may seem counterintuitive; receptionists often assume it’s better to squeeze them in early, while you’re still running on time. But doing that guarantees you will run late, and it isn’t fair to patients who have appointments and expect to be seen promptly.

Work-ins, on the other hand, expect a wait because they have no appointment. We tell them, “Our schedule is full today; but if you come at the end of hours, the doctor will see you. But you may have a wait.” Far from complaining, they invariably thank us for seeing them.

Seize the list. You know the list I mean. “Number 16: My right big toe itches. Number 17: I think I feel something on my back. Number 18: This weird chartreuse thing on my arm ...” One long list can leave an entire half-day schedule in shambles.

When a list is produced, the best option is to take it and read it yourself. Identify the most important two or three problems, and address them. For the rest, I will say, “This group of problems deserves a visit of its own, and we will schedule that visit.”

Ask if you can place the list (or a photocopy) in the patient’s chart. (It is, after all, important clinical information.) All of these problems are important to the patient and should be addressed – but on your schedule, not the patient’s.

Avoid interruptions. Especially phone calls. Unless it’s an emergency or an immediate family member, my receptionists say, “I’m sorry, the doctor is with patients. May I take a message?” Everyone – even other physicians – understands. But be sure to return those calls promptly.

Pharmaceutical reps should not be allowed to interrupt you, either. Have them make an appointment, just like everybody else.

There will be times, of course, when you run late. But these should be the exception rather than the rule. By streamlining your procedures and avoiding the pitfalls mentioned, you can give nearly every patient all the time he or she deserves without keeping the next patient waiting.

Incidentally, other common patient complaints in that survey were the following:

• Couldn’t schedule an appointment within a week.
• Spent too little time with me.
• Didn’t provide test results promptly.
• Didn’t respond to my phone calls promptly.

Now would be an excellent opportunity to identify and address any of those problems as well.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Friday, Feb. 10, 2023, marked the first time a patient told me they had used ChatGPT to answer a medical question. I’ve been reluctant to write about this super-buzzy new AI chatbot, but I am starting to think it is the real deal. Just how powerful is it? Well, ChatGPT might in fact be writing this column right now. It isn’t. No really, it’s me. But if not for the few cues (“super-buzzy”) that you’ll recognize as my writing voice, there might not be any way for you to know if I wrote this or not.

It’s perfectly OK if you’ve no clue what I’m talking about. ChatGPT is an AI chatbot that burst into public view just a couple months ago. Not your parent’s chatbot, this one is capable of answering questions in conversational language. It is jaw-droppingly good. Like Google, you can type in a question and it offers you answers. Rather than giving you a list of websites and a few Wikipedia blurbs, however, ChatGPT answers your question in human-like text. It can also create content on demand. For example, I asked it to write a Valentine poem to a dermatologist, and it gave me five stanzas starting with:

Oh gentle healer of skin so fair,
Your touch is soft and hands so rare,
With your skills and gentle care,
You make my heart skip with a flare.

Not good enough to send to my wife. But not bad.

If you ask it again, it will create a whole new one for you. Amusing, yes? What if you asked ChatGPT to explain psoriasis, or any medical condition for that matter, to a patient? The replies are quite good. Some even better than what I’m currently using for my patients. It can also offer treatment recommendations, vacation advice, and plan, with recipes, a dinner party for six with one vegan and one gluten-free couple. If you are a programmer, it can write code. Ask it for a Wordpress plugin to add to your website and your eyes will widen as you see it magically appear before you. What if you find that you just don’t like your daughter’s new boyfriend? Yep, it will write the text or email for you to help with this discussion. I’ve saved that one.

I tried “What are treatments for bullous pemphigoid that has been refractory to topical steroid, oral prednisone, and oral tetracyclines?” It replied with five ideas, including the standard methotrexate and azathioprine but also IVIG, Rituxan, even other biologics. Write an op note? Appeal a denied prior authorization to a payer? Write a clinic note for a complete skin exam? Check, check, check. Are you starting to think it might be the real deal, too?

Before we sell the farm though, there are significant limitations. Despite how swotty ChatGPT seems, it is not smart. That is, “it” has no idea what “it” is saying. ChatGPT is an incredibly sophisticated algorithm that has learned the probability of what word comes next in a conversation. To do so, it read the Internet. Billions (trillions?) of words make it possible to predict what is the best answer to any question. But – it’s only as good as the Internet, so there’s that. My patient who used ChatGPT has dissecting cellulitis and asked what to do for scarring alopecia. Some of the answers were reasonable, but some, such as transplanting hairs into the scarred areas, would not likely be helpful. That is unless ChatGPT knows something I don’t.

Having wasted hours of time playing with this thing rather than writing my column, I asked ChatGPT to write an article about itself in the style of Christopher Hitchens. It was nothing like his incisive and eloquent prose, but it wrote 500 words in a few seconds ending with:

“The reality is that there is no substitute for human interaction and empathy in the field of dermatology. Dermatologists must be cautious in their adoption of ChatGPT and ensure that they are not sacrificing the quality of patient care in the pursuit of efficiency and convenience.”

I’m not sure I could have said it better myself.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Friday, Feb. 10, 2023, marked the first time a patient told me they had used ChatGPT to answer a medical question. I’ve been reluctant to write about this super-buzzy new AI chatbot, but I am starting to think it is the real deal. Just how powerful is it? Well, ChatGPT might in fact be writing this column right now. It isn’t. No really, it’s me. But if not for the few cues (“super-buzzy”) that you’ll recognize as my writing voice, there might not be any way for you to know if I wrote this or not.

It’s perfectly OK if you’ve no clue what I’m talking about. ChatGPT is an AI chatbot that burst into public view just a couple months ago. Not your parent’s chatbot, this one is capable of answering questions in conversational language. It is jaw-droppingly good. Like Google, you can type in a question and it offers you answers. Rather than giving you a list of websites and a few Wikipedia blurbs, however, ChatGPT answers your question in human-like text. It can also create content on demand. For example, I asked it to write a Valentine poem to a dermatologist, and it gave me five stanzas starting with:

Oh gentle healer of skin so fair,
Your touch is soft and hands so rare,
With your skills and gentle care,
You make my heart skip with a flare.

Not good enough to send to my wife. But not bad.

If you ask it again, it will create a whole new one for you. Amusing, yes? What if you asked ChatGPT to explain psoriasis, or any medical condition for that matter, to a patient? The replies are quite good. Some even better than what I’m currently using for my patients. It can also offer treatment recommendations, vacation advice, and plan, with recipes, a dinner party for six with one vegan and one gluten-free couple. If you are a programmer, it can write code. Ask it for a Wordpress plugin to add to your website and your eyes will widen as you see it magically appear before you. What if you find that you just don’t like your daughter’s new boyfriend? Yep, it will write the text or email for you to help with this discussion. I’ve saved that one.

I tried “What are treatments for bullous pemphigoid that has been refractory to topical steroid, oral prednisone, and oral tetracyclines?” It replied with five ideas, including the standard methotrexate and azathioprine but also IVIG, Rituxan, even other biologics. Write an op note? Appeal a denied prior authorization to a payer? Write a clinic note for a complete skin exam? Check, check, check. Are you starting to think it might be the real deal, too?

Before we sell the farm though, there are significant limitations. Despite how swotty ChatGPT seems, it is not smart. That is, “it” has no idea what “it” is saying. ChatGPT is an incredibly sophisticated algorithm that has learned the probability of what word comes next in a conversation. To do so, it read the Internet. Billions (trillions?) of words make it possible to predict what is the best answer to any question. But – it’s only as good as the Internet, so there’s that. My patient who used ChatGPT has dissecting cellulitis and asked what to do for scarring alopecia. Some of the answers were reasonable, but some, such as transplanting hairs into the scarred areas, would not likely be helpful. That is unless ChatGPT knows something I don’t.

Having wasted hours of time playing with this thing rather than writing my column, I asked ChatGPT to write an article about itself in the style of Christopher Hitchens. It was nothing like his incisive and eloquent prose, but it wrote 500 words in a few seconds ending with:

“The reality is that there is no substitute for human interaction and empathy in the field of dermatology. Dermatologists must be cautious in their adoption of ChatGPT and ensure that they are not sacrificing the quality of patient care in the pursuit of efficiency and convenience.”

I’m not sure I could have said it better myself.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Friday, Feb. 10, 2023, marked the first time a patient told me they had used ChatGPT to answer a medical question. I’ve been reluctant to write about this super-buzzy new AI chatbot, but I am starting to think it is the real deal. Just how powerful is it? Well, ChatGPT might in fact be writing this column right now. It isn’t. No really, it’s me. But if not for the few cues (“super-buzzy”) that you’ll recognize as my writing voice, there might not be any way for you to know if I wrote this or not.

It’s perfectly OK if you’ve no clue what I’m talking about. ChatGPT is an AI chatbot that burst into public view just a couple months ago. Not your parent’s chatbot, this one is capable of answering questions in conversational language. It is jaw-droppingly good. Like Google, you can type in a question and it offers you answers. Rather than giving you a list of websites and a few Wikipedia blurbs, however, ChatGPT answers your question in human-like text. It can also create content on demand. For example, I asked it to write a Valentine poem to a dermatologist, and it gave me five stanzas starting with:

Oh gentle healer of skin so fair,
Your touch is soft and hands so rare,
With your skills and gentle care,
You make my heart skip with a flare.

Not good enough to send to my wife. But not bad.

If you ask it again, it will create a whole new one for you. Amusing, yes? What if you asked ChatGPT to explain psoriasis, or any medical condition for that matter, to a patient? The replies are quite good. Some even better than what I’m currently using for my patients. It can also offer treatment recommendations, vacation advice, and plan, with recipes, a dinner party for six with one vegan and one gluten-free couple. If you are a programmer, it can write code. Ask it for a Wordpress plugin to add to your website and your eyes will widen as you see it magically appear before you. What if you find that you just don’t like your daughter’s new boyfriend? Yep, it will write the text or email for you to help with this discussion. I’ve saved that one.

I tried “What are treatments for bullous pemphigoid that has been refractory to topical steroid, oral prednisone, and oral tetracyclines?” It replied with five ideas, including the standard methotrexate and azathioprine but also IVIG, Rituxan, even other biologics. Write an op note? Appeal a denied prior authorization to a payer? Write a clinic note for a complete skin exam? Check, check, check. Are you starting to think it might be the real deal, too?

Before we sell the farm though, there are significant limitations. Despite how swotty ChatGPT seems, it is not smart. That is, “it” has no idea what “it” is saying. ChatGPT is an incredibly sophisticated algorithm that has learned the probability of what word comes next in a conversation. To do so, it read the Internet. Billions (trillions?) of words make it possible to predict what is the best answer to any question. But – it’s only as good as the Internet, so there’s that. My patient who used ChatGPT has dissecting cellulitis and asked what to do for scarring alopecia. Some of the answers were reasonable, but some, such as transplanting hairs into the scarred areas, would not likely be helpful. That is unless ChatGPT knows something I don’t.

Having wasted hours of time playing with this thing rather than writing my column, I asked ChatGPT to write an article about itself in the style of Christopher Hitchens. It was nothing like his incisive and eloquent prose, but it wrote 500 words in a few seconds ending with:

“The reality is that there is no substitute for human interaction and empathy in the field of dermatology. Dermatologists must be cautious in their adoption of ChatGPT and ensure that they are not sacrificing the quality of patient care in the pursuit of efficiency and convenience.”

I’m not sure I could have said it better myself.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.

Alister Martin, MD, had initially planned to follow in his stepfather’s footsteps, managing the drug store in Neptune, N.J., township where he was raised. But a fight changed his prospects. 

In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend. 

“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”

When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked. 

“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”

Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.

Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.

After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”

But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”

After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died. 

“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.

Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.

Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..

He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.

While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.

Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do. 

“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says. 

Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.

Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful. 

“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”

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

It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.

Alister Martin, MD, had initially planned to follow in his stepfather’s footsteps, managing the drug store in Neptune, N.J., township where he was raised. But a fight changed his prospects. 

In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend. 

“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”

When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked. 

“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”

Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.

Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.

After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”

But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”

After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died. 

“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.

Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.

Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..

He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.

While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.

Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do. 

“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says. 

Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.

Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful. 

“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”

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

It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.

Alister Martin, MD, had initially planned to follow in his stepfather’s footsteps, managing the drug store in Neptune, N.J., township where he was raised. But a fight changed his prospects. 

In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend. 

“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”

When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked. 

“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”

Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.

Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.

After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”

But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”

After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died. 

“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.

Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.

Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..

He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.

While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.

Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do. 

“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says. 

Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.

Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful. 

“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”

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

Pregnant and scared, Natasha Valle went to a Tennova Healthcare hospital, Clarksville, Tenn., in January 2021 because she was bleeding. She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.

In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.

“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.

The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.

In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”

Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.

A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.

Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.

Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.

“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”

Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.

But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.

“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
 

For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”

Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.

Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.

Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.

These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”

Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”

The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.

Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.

Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.

“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
 

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”

Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.

It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”

Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.

The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.

There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.

Private equity can make millions in the gap.

For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.

Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.

American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Pregnant and scared, Natasha Valle went to a Tennova Healthcare hospital, Clarksville, Tenn., in January 2021 because she was bleeding. She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.

In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.

“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.

The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.

In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”

Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.

A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.

Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.

Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.

“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”

Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.

But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.

“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
 

For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”

Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.

Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.

Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.

These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”

Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”

The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.

Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.

Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.

“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
 

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”

Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.

It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”

Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.

The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.

There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.

Private equity can make millions in the gap.

For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.

Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.

American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Pregnant and scared, Natasha Valle went to a Tennova Healthcare hospital, Clarksville, Tenn., in January 2021 because she was bleeding. She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.

In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.

“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.

The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.

In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”

Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.

A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.

Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.

Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.

“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”

Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.

But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.

“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
 

For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”

Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.

Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.

Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.

These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”

Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”

The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.

Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.

Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.

“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
 

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”

Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.

It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”

Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.

The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.

There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.

Private equity can make millions in the gap.

For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.

Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.

American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.

“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.

In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.

The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.

Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.

No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.

During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.

The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
 

Targeted screening makes sense for now

“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.

Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.

Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.

“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.

The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.

“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.

In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.

The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.

Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.

No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.

During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.

The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
 

Targeted screening makes sense for now

“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.

Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.

Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.

“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.

The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.

“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.

In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.

The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.

Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.

No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.

During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.

The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
 

Targeted screening makes sense for now

“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.

Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.

Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.

“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.

The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

When administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, secukinumab was effective at improving signs and symptoms of moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in adults up to 52 weeks, results from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed.

The findings build on week 16 data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS, and were presented at the 2022 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. In those studies, at 16 weeks, 42%-46% of patients achieved an HS Clinical Response (HiSCR) – the primary outcome measure in both trials. For the most recent analysis, which was published in The Lancet, investigators found that, at 52 weeks, 56.4% of patients in SUNSHINE and 65% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks achieved a HiSCR, compared with 56.3% of patients in SUNSHINE and 62.2% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks.

“This is great news for people with HS: it improves our knowledge about how to best treat patients today and leads us to new areas that will help us treat them even better in the future,” Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, the lead investigator for both trials, said in an interview. “Dermatologists have been using biologics for decades. This data provides clinicians with information they can use to easily expand their HS management repertoire to include secukinumab.”

To date, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab is the only approved biologic therapy approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, in people aged 12 years and older.

The two trials were conducted in 40 countries, with SUNSHINE enrolling 541 patients, and SUNRISE enrolling 543. Patients in each study were randomized to one of three experimental arms: secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks after five weekly loading doses; secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks after five weekly loading doses; placebo dose every 2 weeks after five weekly placebo doses. The mean age was 37 years, about 55% were female, and about 76% were White (about 9% were Black and about 10% were Asian). Dr. Kimball, investigator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors observed that the group that received secukinumab every 4 weeks did not meet the primary endpoint in the SUNSHINE trial, but it was met in the SUNRISE trial. “Research and subgroup analyses are required and might improve our understanding of the effect of patient characteristics on treatment response and further refine the dosing recommendations for different populations,” they wrote.

In a pooled analysis, 55.2% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks had a reduction in pain as measured by the Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, compared with 53% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The most common adverse events up to week 16 in both trials were headache, nasopharyngitis, and hidradenitis; no deaths occurred.

“One limitation of most studies in HS is that the placebo-controlled period is short, so the data obtained after that time is harder to interpret,” Dr. Kimball said in an interview. “In my experience, optimizing treatment can take almost a year and I hope we will see longer controlled periods in future studies.” Another limitation of the studies she acknowledged was a modest imbalance with respect to disease severity between the treatment groups at baseline. “It was a little surprising that some imbalances in the characteristics of randomized subjects in different arms of the study impacted efficacy levels,” she said. “We’ll need to continue to identify how to match patients and dosing regimens to get the best results.”

According to a press release from Novartis, trial results have been submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the United States, and decisions are expected in 2023. If approved, secukinumab will be the first and only IL-17 inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, described HS as “an extraordinarily disabling, painful, deforming condition for which we only have one [Food and Drug Administration]–approved systemic therapy, requiring us to wear our ‘off-label bandit’ name tags proudly to tackle therapeutic challenges.

“Anecdotally,” he said, “we dabble with off-label biologics indicated for psoriasis in this setting, though limitations exist ranging from lack of large-scale clinical data to the recurring theme that psoriasis dosing typically doesn’t cut it, making access to said medications even more difficult. Investigators in this study addresses both gaps very effectively, and I for one welcome the implications and hopeful regulatory impact with open arms.”

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Kimball disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Sanova, Pfizer, Novartis, and other companies.

When administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, secukinumab was effective at improving signs and symptoms of moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in adults up to 52 weeks, results from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed.

The findings build on week 16 data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS, and were presented at the 2022 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. In those studies, at 16 weeks, 42%-46% of patients achieved an HS Clinical Response (HiSCR) – the primary outcome measure in both trials. For the most recent analysis, which was published in The Lancet, investigators found that, at 52 weeks, 56.4% of patients in SUNSHINE and 65% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks achieved a HiSCR, compared with 56.3% of patients in SUNSHINE and 62.2% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks.

“This is great news for people with HS: it improves our knowledge about how to best treat patients today and leads us to new areas that will help us treat them even better in the future,” Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, the lead investigator for both trials, said in an interview. “Dermatologists have been using biologics for decades. This data provides clinicians with information they can use to easily expand their HS management repertoire to include secukinumab.”

To date, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab is the only approved biologic therapy approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, in people aged 12 years and older.

The two trials were conducted in 40 countries, with SUNSHINE enrolling 541 patients, and SUNRISE enrolling 543. Patients in each study were randomized to one of three experimental arms: secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks after five weekly loading doses; secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks after five weekly loading doses; placebo dose every 2 weeks after five weekly placebo doses. The mean age was 37 years, about 55% were female, and about 76% were White (about 9% were Black and about 10% were Asian). Dr. Kimball, investigator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors observed that the group that received secukinumab every 4 weeks did not meet the primary endpoint in the SUNSHINE trial, but it was met in the SUNRISE trial. “Research and subgroup analyses are required and might improve our understanding of the effect of patient characteristics on treatment response and further refine the dosing recommendations for different populations,” they wrote.

In a pooled analysis, 55.2% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks had a reduction in pain as measured by the Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, compared with 53% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The most common adverse events up to week 16 in both trials were headache, nasopharyngitis, and hidradenitis; no deaths occurred.

“One limitation of most studies in HS is that the placebo-controlled period is short, so the data obtained after that time is harder to interpret,” Dr. Kimball said in an interview. “In my experience, optimizing treatment can take almost a year and I hope we will see longer controlled periods in future studies.” Another limitation of the studies she acknowledged was a modest imbalance with respect to disease severity between the treatment groups at baseline. “It was a little surprising that some imbalances in the characteristics of randomized subjects in different arms of the study impacted efficacy levels,” she said. “We’ll need to continue to identify how to match patients and dosing regimens to get the best results.”

According to a press release from Novartis, trial results have been submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the United States, and decisions are expected in 2023. If approved, secukinumab will be the first and only IL-17 inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, described HS as “an extraordinarily disabling, painful, deforming condition for which we only have one [Food and Drug Administration]–approved systemic therapy, requiring us to wear our ‘off-label bandit’ name tags proudly to tackle therapeutic challenges.

“Anecdotally,” he said, “we dabble with off-label biologics indicated for psoriasis in this setting, though limitations exist ranging from lack of large-scale clinical data to the recurring theme that psoriasis dosing typically doesn’t cut it, making access to said medications even more difficult. Investigators in this study addresses both gaps very effectively, and I for one welcome the implications and hopeful regulatory impact with open arms.”

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Kimball disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Sanova, Pfizer, Novartis, and other companies.

When administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, secukinumab was effective at improving signs and symptoms of moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in adults up to 52 weeks, results from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed.

The findings build on week 16 data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS, and were presented at the 2022 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. In those studies, at 16 weeks, 42%-46% of patients achieved an HS Clinical Response (HiSCR) – the primary outcome measure in both trials. For the most recent analysis, which was published in The Lancet, investigators found that, at 52 weeks, 56.4% of patients in SUNSHINE and 65% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks achieved a HiSCR, compared with 56.3% of patients in SUNSHINE and 62.2% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks.

“This is great news for people with HS: it improves our knowledge about how to best treat patients today and leads us to new areas that will help us treat them even better in the future,” Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, the lead investigator for both trials, said in an interview. “Dermatologists have been using biologics for decades. This data provides clinicians with information they can use to easily expand their HS management repertoire to include secukinumab.”

To date, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab is the only approved biologic therapy approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, in people aged 12 years and older.

The two trials were conducted in 40 countries, with SUNSHINE enrolling 541 patients, and SUNRISE enrolling 543. Patients in each study were randomized to one of three experimental arms: secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks after five weekly loading doses; secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks after five weekly loading doses; placebo dose every 2 weeks after five weekly placebo doses. The mean age was 37 years, about 55% were female, and about 76% were White (about 9% were Black and about 10% were Asian). Dr. Kimball, investigator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors observed that the group that received secukinumab every 4 weeks did not meet the primary endpoint in the SUNSHINE trial, but it was met in the SUNRISE trial. “Research and subgroup analyses are required and might improve our understanding of the effect of patient characteristics on treatment response and further refine the dosing recommendations for different populations,” they wrote.

In a pooled analysis, 55.2% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks had a reduction in pain as measured by the Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, compared with 53% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The most common adverse events up to week 16 in both trials were headache, nasopharyngitis, and hidradenitis; no deaths occurred.

“One limitation of most studies in HS is that the placebo-controlled period is short, so the data obtained after that time is harder to interpret,” Dr. Kimball said in an interview. “In my experience, optimizing treatment can take almost a year and I hope we will see longer controlled periods in future studies.” Another limitation of the studies she acknowledged was a modest imbalance with respect to disease severity between the treatment groups at baseline. “It was a little surprising that some imbalances in the characteristics of randomized subjects in different arms of the study impacted efficacy levels,” she said. “We’ll need to continue to identify how to match patients and dosing regimens to get the best results.”

According to a press release from Novartis, trial results have been submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the United States, and decisions are expected in 2023. If approved, secukinumab will be the first and only IL-17 inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, described HS as “an extraordinarily disabling, painful, deforming condition for which we only have one [Food and Drug Administration]–approved systemic therapy, requiring us to wear our ‘off-label bandit’ name tags proudly to tackle therapeutic challenges.

“Anecdotally,” he said, “we dabble with off-label biologics indicated for psoriasis in this setting, though limitations exist ranging from lack of large-scale clinical data to the recurring theme that psoriasis dosing typically doesn’t cut it, making access to said medications even more difficult. Investigators in this study addresses both gaps very effectively, and I for one welcome the implications and hopeful regulatory impact with open arms.”

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Kimball disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Sanova, Pfizer, Novartis, and other companies.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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