MDedge Dermatology

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

The United States has now recorded more than 10,000 confirmed monkeypox cases, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The United States passed the 10,000 mark on Aug. 10, with the number climbing to 10,768 by the morning of Aug. 12, according to the latest CDC data. Monkeypox cases have been found in every state except Wyoming. New York (2,187), California (1,892), and Florida (1,053) have reported the most cases. So far, no monkeypox deaths have been reported in the United States.

The numbers are increasing, with 1,391 cases reported in the United States on Aug. 12 alone, by far the most in 1 day since the current outbreak began.

“We are still operating under a containment goal, although I know many states are starting to wonder if we’re shifting to more of a mitigation phase right now, given that our case counts are still rising rapidly,” Jennifer McQuiston, DVM, the CDC’s top monkeypox official, told a group of the agency’s advisers on Aug. 9, according to CBS News.

Since late July, the United States has reported more monkeypox cases than any other nation. After the United States, Spain has reported 5,162 cases, the United Kingdom 3,017, and France 2,423, according to the World Health Organization.

Globally, 31,655 cases have been recorded, with 5,108 of those cases coming in the last 7 days, according to the WHO. There have been 12 deaths attributed to monkeypox, with one coming in the last week.

The smallpox-like disease was first found in humans in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1970 and has become more common in West and Central Africa. It began spreading to European and other Western nations in May 2022.

The WHO declared it a global public health emergency in late July, and the Biden administration declared it a national health emergency Aug. 4.

To fight the spread of monkeypox, the Biden administration is buying $26 million worth of SIGA Technologies Inc.’s IV version of the antiviral drug TPOXX, the company announced on Aug. 9.

U.S. health officials also modified monkeypox vaccine dosing instructions to stretch the supply of vaccine. Instead of sticking with a standard shot that would enter deep into tissue, the FDA now encourages a new way: just under the skin at one-fifth the usual dose.

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

The United States has now recorded more than 10,000 confirmed monkeypox cases, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The United States passed the 10,000 mark on Aug. 10, with the number climbing to 10,768 by the morning of Aug. 12, according to the latest CDC data. Monkeypox cases have been found in every state except Wyoming. New York (2,187), California (1,892), and Florida (1,053) have reported the most cases. So far, no monkeypox deaths have been reported in the United States.

The numbers are increasing, with 1,391 cases reported in the United States on Aug. 12 alone, by far the most in 1 day since the current outbreak began.

“We are still operating under a containment goal, although I know many states are starting to wonder if we’re shifting to more of a mitigation phase right now, given that our case counts are still rising rapidly,” Jennifer McQuiston, DVM, the CDC’s top monkeypox official, told a group of the agency’s advisers on Aug. 9, according to CBS News.

Since late July, the United States has reported more monkeypox cases than any other nation. After the United States, Spain has reported 5,162 cases, the United Kingdom 3,017, and France 2,423, according to the World Health Organization.

Globally, 31,655 cases have been recorded, with 5,108 of those cases coming in the last 7 days, according to the WHO. There have been 12 deaths attributed to monkeypox, with one coming in the last week.

The smallpox-like disease was first found in humans in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1970 and has become more common in West and Central Africa. It began spreading to European and other Western nations in May 2022.

The WHO declared it a global public health emergency in late July, and the Biden administration declared it a national health emergency Aug. 4.

To fight the spread of monkeypox, the Biden administration is buying $26 million worth of SIGA Technologies Inc.’s IV version of the antiviral drug TPOXX, the company announced on Aug. 9.

U.S. health officials also modified monkeypox vaccine dosing instructions to stretch the supply of vaccine. Instead of sticking with a standard shot that would enter deep into tissue, the FDA now encourages a new way: just under the skin at one-fifth the usual dose.

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

The United States has now recorded more than 10,000 confirmed monkeypox cases, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The United States passed the 10,000 mark on Aug. 10, with the number climbing to 10,768 by the morning of Aug. 12, according to the latest CDC data. Monkeypox cases have been found in every state except Wyoming. New York (2,187), California (1,892), and Florida (1,053) have reported the most cases. So far, no monkeypox deaths have been reported in the United States.

The numbers are increasing, with 1,391 cases reported in the United States on Aug. 12 alone, by far the most in 1 day since the current outbreak began.

“We are still operating under a containment goal, although I know many states are starting to wonder if we’re shifting to more of a mitigation phase right now, given that our case counts are still rising rapidly,” Jennifer McQuiston, DVM, the CDC’s top monkeypox official, told a group of the agency’s advisers on Aug. 9, according to CBS News.

Since late July, the United States has reported more monkeypox cases than any other nation. After the United States, Spain has reported 5,162 cases, the United Kingdom 3,017, and France 2,423, according to the World Health Organization.

Globally, 31,655 cases have been recorded, with 5,108 of those cases coming in the last 7 days, according to the WHO. There have been 12 deaths attributed to monkeypox, with one coming in the last week.

The smallpox-like disease was first found in humans in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1970 and has become more common in West and Central Africa. It began spreading to European and other Western nations in May 2022.

The WHO declared it a global public health emergency in late July, and the Biden administration declared it a national health emergency Aug. 4.

To fight the spread of monkeypox, the Biden administration is buying $26 million worth of SIGA Technologies Inc.’s IV version of the antiviral drug TPOXX, the company announced on Aug. 9.

U.S. health officials also modified monkeypox vaccine dosing instructions to stretch the supply of vaccine. Instead of sticking with a standard shot that would enter deep into tissue, the FDA now encourages a new way: just under the skin at one-fifth the usual dose.

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

For the first time, patients with vitiligo who have long lived with patches of skin that are without pigment can now have even skin tones on their faces and other bodily regions with a Food and Drug Administration–approved, easy-to-use topical treatment.

In July, a cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, became the first repigmentation treatment approved by the FDA for nonsegmental vitiligo, the most common form of the disease.

Topical ruxolitinib was first approved in September 2021 for atopic dermatitis, and dermatologists are already writing prescriptions for its new vitiligo indication.

“The FDA approval of ruxolitinib for repigmentation of vitiligo is historic and groundbreaking,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The news brings hope to patients 12 years and older who suffer from the psychosocial effects of the disease, which is estimated to affect 1.9 million to 2.8 million adults in the United States.

The announcement followed FDA approval a month earlier of another dermatologic milestone – an oral JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, which became the first treatment for patients with alopecia areata.

For Dr. Desai, the ruxolitinib news is personal. His brother, also a physician, has lived a lifetime with vitiligo. His family experience, Dr. Desai said, showed him “what a disease like this can do to a person psychologically.”

Dr. Desai said his early exposure helped lead to his own decision to dedicate his career to pigmentary diseases.

His brother won’t personally benefit from the cream because his skin has been completely depigmented and repigmentation is not of interest to him, Dr. Desai said. But both brothers are excited as physicians. “It’s really quite an emotional moment,” he said.

Getting the news to patients

As dermatologists introduce the topical treatment to patients, common questions center on why this cream is different and whether it is safe.

David Rosmarin, MD, vice chair of research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, led the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 and 2 (TruE-V1, TruE-V2), conducted in North America and Europe.

He summarized some key findings.

“If patients have involvement on the face, trunk, or extremities, the data show that about half the patients at 52 weeks will get half or more of their pigment back,” he said in an interview. Results for the face alone are even better. “Half the patients will get 75% or more pigment back in the face,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

In addition, analysis of subgroups shows benefit for all patients. “Patients seem to respond similarly well across all subgroups – across gender, sex, age, ethnicity, and race,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

However, anatomic region matters, he pointed out. Skin of the head and neck responds the best, followed by skin of the trunk and extremities. The hands and feet are the most difficult to repigment because there are few hair follicles, which help enable repigmentation.

He added that it’s important to understand patients’ goals, and dermatologists shouldn’t assume that all who have vitiligo will want to undergo repigmentation. They may be interested in the new treatment but may not want it for themselves, he explained.

Explaining risks

Patients may ask about the boxed warning on the label that lists risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, infections, blood clots, and death. Dermatologists can explain that the warning pertains to the whole JAK class and was based on patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Rosmarin said.

He added, “We didn’t see a signal for heart attack and stroke for patients using the topical. But it’s still important to discuss the label as the FDA states it.”

There are two main side effects, Dr. Rosmarin said: acne (about 6% of treated patients get it, and it’s usually mild) and application-site reactions. “Luckily, the medication has a tendency not to sting or burn, which is not the case with some of our other treatments. It’s very well tolerated,” he said.

Patients should also know that repigmentation can take time, because initially, the immune system is directed to calm down with treatment, and then pigment must travel back to the affected sites.

Some patients may have a response in as early as 2-3 months, and others need more time, Dr. Rosmarin said.

Treatment responses among adolescents have been particularly good. Responses regarding the skin of the face have been similar to those of adults. “However, on the body, they respond even better,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “About 60% achieve 50% or more repigmentation on the whole body.”

It’s important that ruxolitinib has been approved for persons aged 12 years and older, he said, because “about half the patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20.”

Approval and insurance coverage

FDA approval will help with reimbursement for the expensive treatment.

The label indicates that patients should not use more than one 60-g tube a week. Currently, the out-of-pocket cost for one tube can be close to $2,000, according to GoodRx.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the Center for Eczema and Itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in recent years, vitiligo patients, aware that their condition could be treated by JAK inhibitors, have been paying out of pocket at compounding pharmacies, which take oral versions of the medication and compound them into topical formulations.

Unlike baricitinib, which is used to treat severe alopecia areata, and other oral JAK inhibitors, testing for TB and hepatitis is not required for initiating treatment with ruxolitinib, so no delay is necessary, Dr. Chovatiya said.

He noted, however, that patients with vitiligo may have given up on effective care after experiencing little or no improvement with topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

“They end up losing steam, are less motivated on therapy, and are lost to care,” he said.

Dermatologists, he said, may need to proactively find these patients and tell them the good news. “Now that we have really good targeted therapeutic options, it’s really up to us to figure out how to bring these people back to the clinic and educate them,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Unanswered questions to address

Some questions are still unanswered, lead study author Dr. Rosmarin said.

Two big questions are how long people will need to continue using ruxolitinib cream and whether depigmentation will recur if people stop using it.

Another aspect of therapy being studied is whether the cream will be even more effective in combination with other treatments.

“The main combination we think about is ruxolitinib with phototherapy – a light treatment – because light could stimulate those pigment cells,” Dr. Rosmarin said,

He noted that light therapy was included in phase 2 testing and that patients did respond. “What we need and what’s planned is a larger study looking at the combination to see whether it is synergistic or not. The longer patients use the cream, the more benefit we see,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

Dr. Desai has served as an investigator and/or consultant to several companies, including Incyte. Dr. Rosmarin has received honoraria as a consultant and has received research support from Incyte, and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, as well as other companies.. Dr. Chovatiya has served as an advisory board member, consultant, and/or investigator for companies that include Incyte.

For the first time, patients with vitiligo who have long lived with patches of skin that are without pigment can now have even skin tones on their faces and other bodily regions with a Food and Drug Administration–approved, easy-to-use topical treatment.

In July, a cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, became the first repigmentation treatment approved by the FDA for nonsegmental vitiligo, the most common form of the disease.

Topical ruxolitinib was first approved in September 2021 for atopic dermatitis, and dermatologists are already writing prescriptions for its new vitiligo indication.

“The FDA approval of ruxolitinib for repigmentation of vitiligo is historic and groundbreaking,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The news brings hope to patients 12 years and older who suffer from the psychosocial effects of the disease, which is estimated to affect 1.9 million to 2.8 million adults in the United States.

The announcement followed FDA approval a month earlier of another dermatologic milestone – an oral JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, which became the first treatment for patients with alopecia areata.

For Dr. Desai, the ruxolitinib news is personal. His brother, also a physician, has lived a lifetime with vitiligo. His family experience, Dr. Desai said, showed him “what a disease like this can do to a person psychologically.”

Dr. Desai said his early exposure helped lead to his own decision to dedicate his career to pigmentary diseases.

His brother won’t personally benefit from the cream because his skin has been completely depigmented and repigmentation is not of interest to him, Dr. Desai said. But both brothers are excited as physicians. “It’s really quite an emotional moment,” he said.

Getting the news to patients

As dermatologists introduce the topical treatment to patients, common questions center on why this cream is different and whether it is safe.

David Rosmarin, MD, vice chair of research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, led the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 and 2 (TruE-V1, TruE-V2), conducted in North America and Europe.

He summarized some key findings.

“If patients have involvement on the face, trunk, or extremities, the data show that about half the patients at 52 weeks will get half or more of their pigment back,” he said in an interview. Results for the face alone are even better. “Half the patients will get 75% or more pigment back in the face,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

In addition, analysis of subgroups shows benefit for all patients. “Patients seem to respond similarly well across all subgroups – across gender, sex, age, ethnicity, and race,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

However, anatomic region matters, he pointed out. Skin of the head and neck responds the best, followed by skin of the trunk and extremities. The hands and feet are the most difficult to repigment because there are few hair follicles, which help enable repigmentation.

He added that it’s important to understand patients’ goals, and dermatologists shouldn’t assume that all who have vitiligo will want to undergo repigmentation. They may be interested in the new treatment but may not want it for themselves, he explained.

Explaining risks

Patients may ask about the boxed warning on the label that lists risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, infections, blood clots, and death. Dermatologists can explain that the warning pertains to the whole JAK class and was based on patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Rosmarin said.

He added, “We didn’t see a signal for heart attack and stroke for patients using the topical. But it’s still important to discuss the label as the FDA states it.”

There are two main side effects, Dr. Rosmarin said: acne (about 6% of treated patients get it, and it’s usually mild) and application-site reactions. “Luckily, the medication has a tendency not to sting or burn, which is not the case with some of our other treatments. It’s very well tolerated,” he said.

Patients should also know that repigmentation can take time, because initially, the immune system is directed to calm down with treatment, and then pigment must travel back to the affected sites.

Some patients may have a response in as early as 2-3 months, and others need more time, Dr. Rosmarin said.

Treatment responses among adolescents have been particularly good. Responses regarding the skin of the face have been similar to those of adults. “However, on the body, they respond even better,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “About 60% achieve 50% or more repigmentation on the whole body.”

It’s important that ruxolitinib has been approved for persons aged 12 years and older, he said, because “about half the patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20.”

Approval and insurance coverage

FDA approval will help with reimbursement for the expensive treatment.

The label indicates that patients should not use more than one 60-g tube a week. Currently, the out-of-pocket cost for one tube can be close to $2,000, according to GoodRx.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the Center for Eczema and Itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in recent years, vitiligo patients, aware that their condition could be treated by JAK inhibitors, have been paying out of pocket at compounding pharmacies, which take oral versions of the medication and compound them into topical formulations.

Unlike baricitinib, which is used to treat severe alopecia areata, and other oral JAK inhibitors, testing for TB and hepatitis is not required for initiating treatment with ruxolitinib, so no delay is necessary, Dr. Chovatiya said.

He noted, however, that patients with vitiligo may have given up on effective care after experiencing little or no improvement with topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

“They end up losing steam, are less motivated on therapy, and are lost to care,” he said.

Dermatologists, he said, may need to proactively find these patients and tell them the good news. “Now that we have really good targeted therapeutic options, it’s really up to us to figure out how to bring these people back to the clinic and educate them,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Unanswered questions to address

Some questions are still unanswered, lead study author Dr. Rosmarin said.

Two big questions are how long people will need to continue using ruxolitinib cream and whether depigmentation will recur if people stop using it.

Another aspect of therapy being studied is whether the cream will be even more effective in combination with other treatments.

“The main combination we think about is ruxolitinib with phototherapy – a light treatment – because light could stimulate those pigment cells,” Dr. Rosmarin said,

He noted that light therapy was included in phase 2 testing and that patients did respond. “What we need and what’s planned is a larger study looking at the combination to see whether it is synergistic or not. The longer patients use the cream, the more benefit we see,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

Dr. Desai has served as an investigator and/or consultant to several companies, including Incyte. Dr. Rosmarin has received honoraria as a consultant and has received research support from Incyte, and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, as well as other companies.. Dr. Chovatiya has served as an advisory board member, consultant, and/or investigator for companies that include Incyte.

For the first time, patients with vitiligo who have long lived with patches of skin that are without pigment can now have even skin tones on their faces and other bodily regions with a Food and Drug Administration–approved, easy-to-use topical treatment.

In July, a cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, became the first repigmentation treatment approved by the FDA for nonsegmental vitiligo, the most common form of the disease.

Topical ruxolitinib was first approved in September 2021 for atopic dermatitis, and dermatologists are already writing prescriptions for its new vitiligo indication.

“The FDA approval of ruxolitinib for repigmentation of vitiligo is historic and groundbreaking,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The news brings hope to patients 12 years and older who suffer from the psychosocial effects of the disease, which is estimated to affect 1.9 million to 2.8 million adults in the United States.

The announcement followed FDA approval a month earlier of another dermatologic milestone – an oral JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, which became the first treatment for patients with alopecia areata.

For Dr. Desai, the ruxolitinib news is personal. His brother, also a physician, has lived a lifetime with vitiligo. His family experience, Dr. Desai said, showed him “what a disease like this can do to a person psychologically.”

Dr. Desai said his early exposure helped lead to his own decision to dedicate his career to pigmentary diseases.

His brother won’t personally benefit from the cream because his skin has been completely depigmented and repigmentation is not of interest to him, Dr. Desai said. But both brothers are excited as physicians. “It’s really quite an emotional moment,” he said.

Getting the news to patients

As dermatologists introduce the topical treatment to patients, common questions center on why this cream is different and whether it is safe.

David Rosmarin, MD, vice chair of research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, led the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 and 2 (TruE-V1, TruE-V2), conducted in North America and Europe.

He summarized some key findings.

“If patients have involvement on the face, trunk, or extremities, the data show that about half the patients at 52 weeks will get half or more of their pigment back,” he said in an interview. Results for the face alone are even better. “Half the patients will get 75% or more pigment back in the face,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

In addition, analysis of subgroups shows benefit for all patients. “Patients seem to respond similarly well across all subgroups – across gender, sex, age, ethnicity, and race,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

However, anatomic region matters, he pointed out. Skin of the head and neck responds the best, followed by skin of the trunk and extremities. The hands and feet are the most difficult to repigment because there are few hair follicles, which help enable repigmentation.

He added that it’s important to understand patients’ goals, and dermatologists shouldn’t assume that all who have vitiligo will want to undergo repigmentation. They may be interested in the new treatment but may not want it for themselves, he explained.

Explaining risks

Patients may ask about the boxed warning on the label that lists risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, infections, blood clots, and death. Dermatologists can explain that the warning pertains to the whole JAK class and was based on patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Rosmarin said.

He added, “We didn’t see a signal for heart attack and stroke for patients using the topical. But it’s still important to discuss the label as the FDA states it.”

There are two main side effects, Dr. Rosmarin said: acne (about 6% of treated patients get it, and it’s usually mild) and application-site reactions. “Luckily, the medication has a tendency not to sting or burn, which is not the case with some of our other treatments. It’s very well tolerated,” he said.

Patients should also know that repigmentation can take time, because initially, the immune system is directed to calm down with treatment, and then pigment must travel back to the affected sites.

Some patients may have a response in as early as 2-3 months, and others need more time, Dr. Rosmarin said.

Treatment responses among adolescents have been particularly good. Responses regarding the skin of the face have been similar to those of adults. “However, on the body, they respond even better,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “About 60% achieve 50% or more repigmentation on the whole body.”

It’s important that ruxolitinib has been approved for persons aged 12 years and older, he said, because “about half the patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20.”

Approval and insurance coverage

FDA approval will help with reimbursement for the expensive treatment.

The label indicates that patients should not use more than one 60-g tube a week. Currently, the out-of-pocket cost for one tube can be close to $2,000, according to GoodRx.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the Center for Eczema and Itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in recent years, vitiligo patients, aware that their condition could be treated by JAK inhibitors, have been paying out of pocket at compounding pharmacies, which take oral versions of the medication and compound them into topical formulations.

Unlike baricitinib, which is used to treat severe alopecia areata, and other oral JAK inhibitors, testing for TB and hepatitis is not required for initiating treatment with ruxolitinib, so no delay is necessary, Dr. Chovatiya said.

He noted, however, that patients with vitiligo may have given up on effective care after experiencing little or no improvement with topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

“They end up losing steam, are less motivated on therapy, and are lost to care,” he said.

Dermatologists, he said, may need to proactively find these patients and tell them the good news. “Now that we have really good targeted therapeutic options, it’s really up to us to figure out how to bring these people back to the clinic and educate them,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Unanswered questions to address

Some questions are still unanswered, lead study author Dr. Rosmarin said.

Two big questions are how long people will need to continue using ruxolitinib cream and whether depigmentation will recur if people stop using it.

Another aspect of therapy being studied is whether the cream will be even more effective in combination with other treatments.

“The main combination we think about is ruxolitinib with phototherapy – a light treatment – because light could stimulate those pigment cells,” Dr. Rosmarin said,

He noted that light therapy was included in phase 2 testing and that patients did respond. “What we need and what’s planned is a larger study looking at the combination to see whether it is synergistic or not. The longer patients use the cream, the more benefit we see,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

Dr. Desai has served as an investigator and/or consultant to several companies, including Incyte. Dr. Rosmarin has received honoraria as a consultant and has received research support from Incyte, and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, as well as other companies.. Dr. Chovatiya has served as an advisory board member, consultant, and/or investigator for companies that include Incyte.

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

A low-level light therapy cap may be a safe, convenient treatment for some patients with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, though the treatment effects from a small prospective trial appear to be subtle.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a form of scarring hair loss with unknown etiology and no known cure that affects mainly women of African descent.

“The low-level light therapy (LLLT) cap does indeed seem to help with symptoms and mild regrowth in CCCA,” senior study author Amy J. McMichael, MD, told this news organization. “The dual-wavelength cap we used appears to have anti-inflammatory properties, and that makes sense for a primarily inflammatory scarring from of alopecia.

“Quality of life improved with the treatment and there were no reported side effects,” added Dr. McMichael, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The results of the study were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

The REVIAN RED cap (REVIAN Inc.) used in the study contains 119 light-emitting diodes (LEDs) arrayed on the cap’s interior surface that emit orange (620 nm) and red (660 nm) light.

The hypothesis for how the dual-wavelength lights work is that light is absorbed by the chromophore cytochrome c oxidase in the mitochondrial membrane. This induces the release of nitric oxide and the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which leads to vasodilation, cytokine regulation, and increased transcription and release of growth factors.

LLLT is approved to treat androgenetic alopecia, the authors wrote, but has not been studied as a treatment for CCCA.

To assess the effects of LLLT on CCCA, Dr. McMichael and her colleagues at Wake Forest followed the condition’s progress in five Black women over their 6-month course of treatment. Four participants completed the study.

At baseline, all participants had been on individual stable CCCA treatment regimens for at least 3 months. They continued those treatments along with LLLT therapy throughout the study. The women ranged in age from 38 to 69 years, had had CCCA for an average of 12 years, and their disease severity ranged from stage IIB to IVA.

They were instructed to wear the REVIAN RED cap with the LEDs activated for 10 minutes each day.

At 2, 4, and 6 months, participants self-assessed their symptoms, a clinician evaluated the condition’s severity, and digital photographs were taken.

At 6 months:

• Three patients showed improved Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).
• Three patients showed decreased loss of follicular openings and breakage.
• A dermoscopic image of the scalp of one patient revealed short, regrowing vellus hairs and minimal interfollicular and perifollicular scale.
• No patients reported side effects.

Small study raises big questions

“I hope this study will lead to a larger study that will look at the long-term outcomes of CCCA,” Dr. McMichael said. “This is a nice treatment that does not require application of something to the scalp that may affect hair styling, and it has no systemic side effects.”

Dr. McMichael acknowledges that the small sample size, participants continuing with their individual stable treatments while also undergoing light therapy, and the lack of patients with stage I disease, are weaknesses in the study.

“However, the strength is that none of the patients had side effects or stopped using the treatment due to difficulty with the system,” she added.

Dr. McMichael said she would like to investigate the effects of longer use of the cap and whether the cap can be used to prevent CCCA.

Chesahna Kindred, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, D.C., and founder of Kindred Hair & Skin Center in Columbia, Md., told this news organization that she uses LLLT in her practice.

“I find that LLLT is mildly helpful, or at least does not worsen, androgenetic alopecia,” she said.

“Interestingly, while all four patients had stable disease upon initiating the study, it appears as though two of the four worsened after the use of LLLT, one improved, and one remained relatively stable,” noted Dr. Kindred, who was not involved in the study. “This is important because once there is complete destruction of the follicle, CCCA is difficult to improve.

“Given that there are several options to address inflammation and follicular damage in CCCA, more studies are needed before I would incorporate LLLT into my regular treatment algorithms,” she added.

“Studies like this are important and remind us to not lump all forms of hair loss together,” she said.

REVIAN Inc. provided the caps, but the study received no additional funding. Dr. McMichael and Dr. Kindred report relevant financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A low-level light therapy cap may be a safe, convenient treatment for some patients with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, though the treatment effects from a small prospective trial appear to be subtle.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a form of scarring hair loss with unknown etiology and no known cure that affects mainly women of African descent.

“The low-level light therapy (LLLT) cap does indeed seem to help with symptoms and mild regrowth in CCCA,” senior study author Amy J. McMichael, MD, told this news organization. “The dual-wavelength cap we used appears to have anti-inflammatory properties, and that makes sense for a primarily inflammatory scarring from of alopecia.

“Quality of life improved with the treatment and there were no reported side effects,” added Dr. McMichael, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The results of the study were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

The REVIAN RED cap (REVIAN Inc.) used in the study contains 119 light-emitting diodes (LEDs) arrayed on the cap’s interior surface that emit orange (620 nm) and red (660 nm) light.

The hypothesis for how the dual-wavelength lights work is that light is absorbed by the chromophore cytochrome c oxidase in the mitochondrial membrane. This induces the release of nitric oxide and the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which leads to vasodilation, cytokine regulation, and increased transcription and release of growth factors.

LLLT is approved to treat androgenetic alopecia, the authors wrote, but has not been studied as a treatment for CCCA.

To assess the effects of LLLT on CCCA, Dr. McMichael and her colleagues at Wake Forest followed the condition’s progress in five Black women over their 6-month course of treatment. Four participants completed the study.

At baseline, all participants had been on individual stable CCCA treatment regimens for at least 3 months. They continued those treatments along with LLLT therapy throughout the study. The women ranged in age from 38 to 69 years, had had CCCA for an average of 12 years, and their disease severity ranged from stage IIB to IVA.

They were instructed to wear the REVIAN RED cap with the LEDs activated for 10 minutes each day.

At 2, 4, and 6 months, participants self-assessed their symptoms, a clinician evaluated the condition’s severity, and digital photographs were taken.

At 6 months:

• Three patients showed improved Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).
• Three patients showed decreased loss of follicular openings and breakage.
• A dermoscopic image of the scalp of one patient revealed short, regrowing vellus hairs and minimal interfollicular and perifollicular scale.
• No patients reported side effects.

Small study raises big questions

“I hope this study will lead to a larger study that will look at the long-term outcomes of CCCA,” Dr. McMichael said. “This is a nice treatment that does not require application of something to the scalp that may affect hair styling, and it has no systemic side effects.”

Dr. McMichael acknowledges that the small sample size, participants continuing with their individual stable treatments while also undergoing light therapy, and the lack of patients with stage I disease, are weaknesses in the study.

“However, the strength is that none of the patients had side effects or stopped using the treatment due to difficulty with the system,” she added.

Dr. McMichael said she would like to investigate the effects of longer use of the cap and whether the cap can be used to prevent CCCA.

Chesahna Kindred, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, D.C., and founder of Kindred Hair & Skin Center in Columbia, Md., told this news organization that she uses LLLT in her practice.

“I find that LLLT is mildly helpful, or at least does not worsen, androgenetic alopecia,” she said.

“Interestingly, while all four patients had stable disease upon initiating the study, it appears as though two of the four worsened after the use of LLLT, one improved, and one remained relatively stable,” noted Dr. Kindred, who was not involved in the study. “This is important because once there is complete destruction of the follicle, CCCA is difficult to improve.

“Given that there are several options to address inflammation and follicular damage in CCCA, more studies are needed before I would incorporate LLLT into my regular treatment algorithms,” she added.

“Studies like this are important and remind us to not lump all forms of hair loss together,” she said.

REVIAN Inc. provided the caps, but the study received no additional funding. Dr. McMichael and Dr. Kindred report relevant financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A low-level light therapy cap may be a safe, convenient treatment for some patients with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, though the treatment effects from a small prospective trial appear to be subtle.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a form of scarring hair loss with unknown etiology and no known cure that affects mainly women of African descent.

“The low-level light therapy (LLLT) cap does indeed seem to help with symptoms and mild regrowth in CCCA,” senior study author Amy J. McMichael, MD, told this news organization. “The dual-wavelength cap we used appears to have anti-inflammatory properties, and that makes sense for a primarily inflammatory scarring from of alopecia.

“Quality of life improved with the treatment and there were no reported side effects,” added Dr. McMichael, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The results of the study were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

The REVIAN RED cap (REVIAN Inc.) used in the study contains 119 light-emitting diodes (LEDs) arrayed on the cap’s interior surface that emit orange (620 nm) and red (660 nm) light.

The hypothesis for how the dual-wavelength lights work is that light is absorbed by the chromophore cytochrome c oxidase in the mitochondrial membrane. This induces the release of nitric oxide and the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which leads to vasodilation, cytokine regulation, and increased transcription and release of growth factors.

LLLT is approved to treat androgenetic alopecia, the authors wrote, but has not been studied as a treatment for CCCA.

To assess the effects of LLLT on CCCA, Dr. McMichael and her colleagues at Wake Forest followed the condition’s progress in five Black women over their 6-month course of treatment. Four participants completed the study.

At baseline, all participants had been on individual stable CCCA treatment regimens for at least 3 months. They continued those treatments along with LLLT therapy throughout the study. The women ranged in age from 38 to 69 years, had had CCCA for an average of 12 years, and their disease severity ranged from stage IIB to IVA.

They were instructed to wear the REVIAN RED cap with the LEDs activated for 10 minutes each day.

At 2, 4, and 6 months, participants self-assessed their symptoms, a clinician evaluated the condition’s severity, and digital photographs were taken.

At 6 months:

• Three patients showed improved Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).
• Three patients showed decreased loss of follicular openings and breakage.
• A dermoscopic image of the scalp of one patient revealed short, regrowing vellus hairs and minimal interfollicular and perifollicular scale.
• No patients reported side effects.

Small study raises big questions

“I hope this study will lead to a larger study that will look at the long-term outcomes of CCCA,” Dr. McMichael said. “This is a nice treatment that does not require application of something to the scalp that may affect hair styling, and it has no systemic side effects.”

Dr. McMichael acknowledges that the small sample size, participants continuing with their individual stable treatments while also undergoing light therapy, and the lack of patients with stage I disease, are weaknesses in the study.

“However, the strength is that none of the patients had side effects or stopped using the treatment due to difficulty with the system,” she added.

Dr. McMichael said she would like to investigate the effects of longer use of the cap and whether the cap can be used to prevent CCCA.

Chesahna Kindred, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, D.C., and founder of Kindred Hair & Skin Center in Columbia, Md., told this news organization that she uses LLLT in her practice.

“I find that LLLT is mildly helpful, or at least does not worsen, androgenetic alopecia,” she said.

“Interestingly, while all four patients had stable disease upon initiating the study, it appears as though two of the four worsened after the use of LLLT, one improved, and one remained relatively stable,” noted Dr. Kindred, who was not involved in the study. “This is important because once there is complete destruction of the follicle, CCCA is difficult to improve.

“Given that there are several options to address inflammation and follicular damage in CCCA, more studies are needed before I would incorporate LLLT into my regular treatment algorithms,” she added.

“Studies like this are important and remind us to not lump all forms of hair loss together,” she said.

REVIAN Inc. provided the caps, but the study received no additional funding. Dr. McMichael and Dr. Kindred report relevant financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Among women who took vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and who breastfed for more than 1 month, the likelihood of atopic eczema in the baby’s first year was reduced, according to results of a clinical trial.

“Our data provide the first randomized controlled trial evidence of a protective effect of antenatal cholecalciferol supplementation on risk of infantile atopic eczema, with the effect only seen in infants that were breastfed for more than 1 month,” lead study author Sarah El-Heis, MRCP, DM, and colleagues wrote.

“The findings support a developmental influence on infantile atopic eczema and point to gestational cholecalciferol supplementation as a preventive strategy to reduce the burden of atopic eczema during infancy,” Dr. El-Heis, an academic clinical lecturer in dermatology at the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Center of the University of Southampton (England), said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

The study also was published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Dr. El-Heis and colleagues analyzed data from one of the three U.K. study sites involved in the double-blind Maternal Vitamin D Osteoporosis Study (MAVIDOS), which enrolled participants between 2008 and 2014.

The women enrolled at the University of Southampton site were of age 18 or older, and had a singleton pregnancy. Serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) levels were 25-100 nmol/L, and calcium levels were less than 2.75 mmol/L.

Those who had metabolic bone disease, kidney stones, hyperparathyroidism, or hypercalciuria or who were taking more than 400 IU/day of vitamin D supplements or medication known to interfere with fetal growth or whose fetus had a major anomaly were excluded.

The study included 1,134 women. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive cholecalciferol 1,000 IU/day from around 14 weeks’ gestation until delivery, and half were assigned to receive placebo. Their babies were assessed for atopic eczema at 12, 24, and 48 months of age.

The maternal and infant characteristics were similar in both groups, but the treatment group tended to breastfeed longer.

Infants appear to be protected up to 1 year of age

Using logistic regression, the researchers analyzed links between maternal cholecalciferol 1,000 IU/day supplements or placebo and atopic eczema risk in their offspring.

After adjustments for breastfeeding duration, among the 636 infants assessed at 12 months, those whose mothers received cholecalciferol had lower odds ratios of atopic eczema than those whose mothers received placebo (OR, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).

The risk of atopic eczema at 12 months was reduced only for children in the treatment group who were breastfed longer than 1 month (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94), further analysis showed. Those who were breastfed for less than 1 month showed no reduced risk.

The combined effect of vitamin D and breastfeeding for longer than 1 month weakened after 1 year and was not statistically significant among the 611 children assessed at 24 months and the 450 children assessed at 48 months. The ORs of atopic eczema in the treatment group and in the control group increased to 0.76 (95% CI, 0.47-1.23) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.52), respectively.

At baseline, the mean maternal serum 25(OH)D levels in the treatment group (46.0 nmol/L) and in the control group (44.7 nmol/L) were similar. But by late pregnancy, maternal serum 25(OH)D levels in the treatment group were higher (67.4 nmol/L) than in the control group (42.4 nmol/L).

The authors note that strengths of the study include its design, the uniformity of criteria used to diagnose atopic eczema, and the similarity of both pregnant groups in their intake of vitamin D during the study.

Limitations included the lack of ultraviolet B light exposure data, the lack of non-White women in the study, the lack of measurement of cord blood and offspring 25(OH)D levels, and the exclusion of women with baseline 25(OH)D concentrations less than 25 nmol/L.

“This is an interesting study that brings up the possibility that maternal factors during pregnancy may impact atopic dermatitis,” Kalyani S. Marathe, MD, MPH, the director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, told this news organization.

The results are mixed, though, she noted.

“While some impact on the risk of eczema is seen at 1 year of age, that protective effect is gone by 2 years and 4 years,” Dr. Marathe, who was not involved in the study, said in an email. “So if maternal supplementation does improve eczema, the effect is not long-lasting.

“The other complicating factor is that the babies who showed reduction in eczema were also the ones who were breastfed longer than 1 month,” she added. “We know that breastfeeding is associated with several factors, including socioeconomic status, so it is difficult to tease out the relationships here.

“Vitamin D has become a very hot topic lately and seems to have protective effects in many areas of health care,” Dr. Marathe said. “These results may motivate pregnant women to be compliant with their prenatal vitamins that contain the amount of vitamin D studied here.”

The study received grant support. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical and nutritional products industries. Dr. El-Heis and Dr. Marathe reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among women who took vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and who breastfed for more than 1 month, the likelihood of atopic eczema in the baby’s first year was reduced, according to results of a clinical trial.

“Our data provide the first randomized controlled trial evidence of a protective effect of antenatal cholecalciferol supplementation on risk of infantile atopic eczema, with the effect only seen in infants that were breastfed for more than 1 month,” lead study author Sarah El-Heis, MRCP, DM, and colleagues wrote.

“The findings support a developmental influence on infantile atopic eczema and point to gestational cholecalciferol supplementation as a preventive strategy to reduce the burden of atopic eczema during infancy,” Dr. El-Heis, an academic clinical lecturer in dermatology at the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Center of the University of Southampton (England), said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

The study also was published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Dr. El-Heis and colleagues analyzed data from one of the three U.K. study sites involved in the double-blind Maternal Vitamin D Osteoporosis Study (MAVIDOS), which enrolled participants between 2008 and 2014.

The women enrolled at the University of Southampton site were of age 18 or older, and had a singleton pregnancy. Serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) levels were 25-100 nmol/L, and calcium levels were less than 2.75 mmol/L.

Those who had metabolic bone disease, kidney stones, hyperparathyroidism, or hypercalciuria or who were taking more than 400 IU/day of vitamin D supplements or medication known to interfere with fetal growth or whose fetus had a major anomaly were excluded.

The study included 1,134 women. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive cholecalciferol 1,000 IU/day from around 14 weeks’ gestation until delivery, and half were assigned to receive placebo. Their babies were assessed for atopic eczema at 12, 24, and 48 months of age.

The maternal and infant characteristics were similar in both groups, but the treatment group tended to breastfeed longer.

Infants appear to be protected up to 1 year of age

Using logistic regression, the researchers analyzed links between maternal cholecalciferol 1,000 IU/day supplements or placebo and atopic eczema risk in their offspring.

After adjustments for breastfeeding duration, among the 636 infants assessed at 12 months, those whose mothers received cholecalciferol had lower odds ratios of atopic eczema than those whose mothers received placebo (OR, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).

The risk of atopic eczema at 12 months was reduced only for children in the treatment group who were breastfed longer than 1 month (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94), further analysis showed. Those who were breastfed for less than 1 month showed no reduced risk.

The combined effect of vitamin D and breastfeeding for longer than 1 month weakened after 1 year and was not statistically significant among the 611 children assessed at 24 months and the 450 children assessed at 48 months. The ORs of atopic eczema in the treatment group and in the control group increased to 0.76 (95% CI, 0.47-1.23) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.52), respectively.

At baseline, the mean maternal serum 25(OH)D levels in the treatment group (46.0 nmol/L) and in the control group (44.7 nmol/L) were similar. But by late pregnancy, maternal serum 25(OH)D levels in the treatment group were higher (67.4 nmol/L) than in the control group (42.4 nmol/L).

The authors note that strengths of the study include its design, the uniformity of criteria used to diagnose atopic eczema, and the similarity of both pregnant groups in their intake of vitamin D during the study.

Limitations included the lack of ultraviolet B light exposure data, the lack of non-White women in the study, the lack of measurement of cord blood and offspring 25(OH)D levels, and the exclusion of women with baseline 25(OH)D concentrations less than 25 nmol/L.

“This is an interesting study that brings up the possibility that maternal factors during pregnancy may impact atopic dermatitis,” Kalyani S. Marathe, MD, MPH, the director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, told this news organization.

The results are mixed, though, she noted.

“While some impact on the risk of eczema is seen at 1 year of age, that protective effect is gone by 2 years and 4 years,” Dr. Marathe, who was not involved in the study, said in an email. “So if maternal supplementation does improve eczema, the effect is not long-lasting.

“The other complicating factor is that the babies who showed reduction in eczema were also the ones who were breastfed longer than 1 month,” she added. “We know that breastfeeding is associated with several factors, including socioeconomic status, so it is difficult to tease out the relationships here.

“Vitamin D has become a very hot topic lately and seems to have protective effects in many areas of health care,” Dr. Marathe said. “These results may motivate pregnant women to be compliant with their prenatal vitamins that contain the amount of vitamin D studied here.”

The study received grant support. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical and nutritional products industries. Dr. El-Heis and Dr. Marathe reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among women who took vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and who breastfed for more than 1 month, the likelihood of atopic eczema in the baby’s first year was reduced, according to results of a clinical trial.

“Our data provide the first randomized controlled trial evidence of a protective effect of antenatal cholecalciferol supplementation on risk of infantile atopic eczema, with the effect only seen in infants that were breastfed for more than 1 month,” lead study author Sarah El-Heis, MRCP, DM, and colleagues wrote.

“The findings support a developmental influence on infantile atopic eczema and point to gestational cholecalciferol supplementation as a preventive strategy to reduce the burden of atopic eczema during infancy,” Dr. El-Heis, an academic clinical lecturer in dermatology at the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Center of the University of Southampton (England), said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

The study also was published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Dr. El-Heis and colleagues analyzed data from one of the three U.K. study sites involved in the double-blind Maternal Vitamin D Osteoporosis Study (MAVIDOS), which enrolled participants between 2008 and 2014.

The women enrolled at the University of Southampton site were of age 18 or older, and had a singleton pregnancy. Serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) levels were 25-100 nmol/L, and calcium levels were less than 2.75 mmol/L.

Those who had metabolic bone disease, kidney stones, hyperparathyroidism, or hypercalciuria or who were taking more than 400 IU/day of vitamin D supplements or medication known to interfere with fetal growth or whose fetus had a major anomaly were excluded.

The study included 1,134 women. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive cholecalciferol 1,000 IU/day from around 14 weeks’ gestation until delivery, and half were assigned to receive placebo. Their babies were assessed for atopic eczema at 12, 24, and 48 months of age.

The maternal and infant characteristics were similar in both groups, but the treatment group tended to breastfeed longer.

Infants appear to be protected up to 1 year of age

Using logistic regression, the researchers analyzed links between maternal cholecalciferol 1,000 IU/day supplements or placebo and atopic eczema risk in their offspring.

After adjustments for breastfeeding duration, among the 636 infants assessed at 12 months, those whose mothers received cholecalciferol had lower odds ratios of atopic eczema than those whose mothers received placebo (OR, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).

The risk of atopic eczema at 12 months was reduced only for children in the treatment group who were breastfed longer than 1 month (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94), further analysis showed. Those who were breastfed for less than 1 month showed no reduced risk.

The combined effect of vitamin D and breastfeeding for longer than 1 month weakened after 1 year and was not statistically significant among the 611 children assessed at 24 months and the 450 children assessed at 48 months. The ORs of atopic eczema in the treatment group and in the control group increased to 0.76 (95% CI, 0.47-1.23) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.52), respectively.

At baseline, the mean maternal serum 25(OH)D levels in the treatment group (46.0 nmol/L) and in the control group (44.7 nmol/L) were similar. But by late pregnancy, maternal serum 25(OH)D levels in the treatment group were higher (67.4 nmol/L) than in the control group (42.4 nmol/L).

The authors note that strengths of the study include its design, the uniformity of criteria used to diagnose atopic eczema, and the similarity of both pregnant groups in their intake of vitamin D during the study.

Limitations included the lack of ultraviolet B light exposure data, the lack of non-White women in the study, the lack of measurement of cord blood and offspring 25(OH)D levels, and the exclusion of women with baseline 25(OH)D concentrations less than 25 nmol/L.

“This is an interesting study that brings up the possibility that maternal factors during pregnancy may impact atopic dermatitis,” Kalyani S. Marathe, MD, MPH, the director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, told this news organization.

The results are mixed, though, she noted.

“While some impact on the risk of eczema is seen at 1 year of age, that protective effect is gone by 2 years and 4 years,” Dr. Marathe, who was not involved in the study, said in an email. “So if maternal supplementation does improve eczema, the effect is not long-lasting.

“The other complicating factor is that the babies who showed reduction in eczema were also the ones who were breastfed longer than 1 month,” she added. “We know that breastfeeding is associated with several factors, including socioeconomic status, so it is difficult to tease out the relationships here.

“Vitamin D has become a very hot topic lately and seems to have protective effects in many areas of health care,” Dr. Marathe said. “These results may motivate pregnant women to be compliant with their prenatal vitamins that contain the amount of vitamin D studied here.”

The study received grant support. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical and nutritional products industries. Dr. El-Heis and Dr. Marathe reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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