MDedge Dermatology

TOPLINE:

Systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) affects nearly 10% of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), with substantial internal organ involvement. Despite lacking skin fibrosis, patients with ssSSc are at a risk for interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction.

METHODOLOGY:

• Driven by a fatal case of ssSSc with cardiac involvement, researchers aimed to evaluate its prevalence, severity, and prognosis.
• They conducted a systematic literature and qualitative synthesis of 35 studies on SSc cohorts from databases published between 1976 and 2023 that comprised data on the prevalence of SSc with or without organ involvement.
• A total of 25,455 patients with SSc were included, with 2437 identified as having ssSSc.
• Studies used various classification criteria for SSc, including the 1980 American Rheumatism Association criteria, 2001 LeRoy and Medsger criteria, and 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria, while ssSSc was classified on the basis of the definitions provided by Rodnan and Fennell and also Poormoghim.
• The analysis focused on ssSSc prevalence, reclassification rates, and internal organ involvement, including interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, scleroderma renal crisis, and cardiac dysfunction.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall mean prevalence of ssSSc was 9.6%, with a range of 0%-22.9% across different studies.
• Reclassification rates of ssSSc into limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) or diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) varied substantially, with some studies reporting rates as high as 27.8% over a 4-year follow-up period.
• The mean frequency of internal organ involvement in patients with ssSSc was 46% for interstitial lung disease, 15% for pulmonary arterial hypertension, 5% for scleroderma renal crisis, and 26.5% for cardiac dysfunction — mainly diastolic dysfunction.
• The survival rates in patients with ssSSc were similar to those with lcSSc and better than those with dcSSc.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results presented herein suggest a slightly more severe yet similar clinical picture of ssSSc compared to lcSSc [limited cutaneous SSc], while dcSSc [diffuse cutaneous SSc] remains the most severe disease form,” the authors wrote. “Although classification criteria should not impact appropriate management of patients, updated ssSSc subclassification criteria, which will take into account time from disease onset, should be considered,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anastasios Makris, MD, First Department of Propaedeutic & Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece. It was published online on August 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The variability in the classification criteria across different studies may affect the comparability of results. The included studies lacked data on cardiac MRI, restricting the identification of myocardial fibrosis patterns and characterization of cardiac disease activity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors disclosed having a consultancy relationship, serving as speakers, and receiving funding for research from multiple companies. One author reported having a patent and being a cofounder of CITUS AG.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) affects nearly 10% of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), with substantial internal organ involvement. Despite lacking skin fibrosis, patients with ssSSc are at a risk for interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction.

METHODOLOGY:

• Driven by a fatal case of ssSSc with cardiac involvement, researchers aimed to evaluate its prevalence, severity, and prognosis.
• They conducted a systematic literature and qualitative synthesis of 35 studies on SSc cohorts from databases published between 1976 and 2023 that comprised data on the prevalence of SSc with or without organ involvement.
• A total of 25,455 patients with SSc were included, with 2437 identified as having ssSSc.
• Studies used various classification criteria for SSc, including the 1980 American Rheumatism Association criteria, 2001 LeRoy and Medsger criteria, and 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria, while ssSSc was classified on the basis of the definitions provided by Rodnan and Fennell and also Poormoghim.
• The analysis focused on ssSSc prevalence, reclassification rates, and internal organ involvement, including interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, scleroderma renal crisis, and cardiac dysfunction.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall mean prevalence of ssSSc was 9.6%, with a range of 0%-22.9% across different studies.
• Reclassification rates of ssSSc into limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) or diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) varied substantially, with some studies reporting rates as high as 27.8% over a 4-year follow-up period.
• The mean frequency of internal organ involvement in patients with ssSSc was 46% for interstitial lung disease, 15% for pulmonary arterial hypertension, 5% for scleroderma renal crisis, and 26.5% for cardiac dysfunction — mainly diastolic dysfunction.
• The survival rates in patients with ssSSc were similar to those with lcSSc and better than those with dcSSc.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results presented herein suggest a slightly more severe yet similar clinical picture of ssSSc compared to lcSSc [limited cutaneous SSc], while dcSSc [diffuse cutaneous SSc] remains the most severe disease form,” the authors wrote. “Although classification criteria should not impact appropriate management of patients, updated ssSSc subclassification criteria, which will take into account time from disease onset, should be considered,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anastasios Makris, MD, First Department of Propaedeutic & Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece. It was published online on August 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The variability in the classification criteria across different studies may affect the comparability of results. The included studies lacked data on cardiac MRI, restricting the identification of myocardial fibrosis patterns and characterization of cardiac disease activity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors disclosed having a consultancy relationship, serving as speakers, and receiving funding for research from multiple companies. One author reported having a patent and being a cofounder of CITUS AG.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) affects nearly 10% of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), with substantial internal organ involvement. Despite lacking skin fibrosis, patients with ssSSc are at a risk for interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction.

METHODOLOGY:

• Driven by a fatal case of ssSSc with cardiac involvement, researchers aimed to evaluate its prevalence, severity, and prognosis.
• They conducted a systematic literature and qualitative synthesis of 35 studies on SSc cohorts from databases published between 1976 and 2023 that comprised data on the prevalence of SSc with or without organ involvement.
• A total of 25,455 patients with SSc were included, with 2437 identified as having ssSSc.
• Studies used various classification criteria for SSc, including the 1980 American Rheumatism Association criteria, 2001 LeRoy and Medsger criteria, and 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria, while ssSSc was classified on the basis of the definitions provided by Rodnan and Fennell and also Poormoghim.
• The analysis focused on ssSSc prevalence, reclassification rates, and internal organ involvement, including interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, scleroderma renal crisis, and cardiac dysfunction.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall mean prevalence of ssSSc was 9.6%, with a range of 0%-22.9% across different studies.
• Reclassification rates of ssSSc into limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) or diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) varied substantially, with some studies reporting rates as high as 27.8% over a 4-year follow-up period.
• The mean frequency of internal organ involvement in patients with ssSSc was 46% for interstitial lung disease, 15% for pulmonary arterial hypertension, 5% for scleroderma renal crisis, and 26.5% for cardiac dysfunction — mainly diastolic dysfunction.
• The survival rates in patients with ssSSc were similar to those with lcSSc and better than those with dcSSc.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results presented herein suggest a slightly more severe yet similar clinical picture of ssSSc compared to lcSSc [limited cutaneous SSc], while dcSSc [diffuse cutaneous SSc] remains the most severe disease form,” the authors wrote. “Although classification criteria should not impact appropriate management of patients, updated ssSSc subclassification criteria, which will take into account time from disease onset, should be considered,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anastasios Makris, MD, First Department of Propaedeutic & Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece. It was published online on August 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The variability in the classification criteria across different studies may affect the comparability of results. The included studies lacked data on cardiac MRI, restricting the identification of myocardial fibrosis patterns and characterization of cardiac disease activity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors disclosed having a consultancy relationship, serving as speakers, and receiving funding for research from multiple companies. One author reported having a patent and being a cofounder of CITUS AG.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

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

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

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

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prurigo nodularis (PN)(also called chronic nodular prurigo, prurigo nodularis of Hyde, or picker’s nodules) was first characterized by James Hyde in 1909.^1-3 Prurigo nodularis manifests with symmetrical, intensely pruritic, eroded, or hyperkeratotic nodules or papules on the extremities and trunk.^1,2,4,5 Studies have shown that individuals with PN experience pruritus, sleep loss, decreased social functioning from the appearance of the nodules, and a higher incidence of anxiety and depression, causing a negative impact on their quality of life.^2,6 In addition, the manifestation of PN has been linked to neurologic and psychiatric disorders; however, PN also can be idiopathic and manifest without underlying illnesses.^2,6,7

Prurigo nodularis has been associated with other dermatologic conditions such as atopic dermatitis (up to 50%), lichen planus, keratoacanthomas (KAs), and bullous pemphigoid.^7-9 It also has been linked to systemic diseases in 38% to 50% of cases, including chronic kidney disease, liver disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, malignancies (hematopoietic, liver, and skin), and HIV infection.^6,8,10

The pathophysiology of PN is highly complex and has yet to be fully elucidated. It is thought to be due to dysregulation and interaction of the increase in neural and immunologic responses of proinflammatory and pruritogenic cytokines.^2,11 Treatments aim to break the itch-scratch cycle that perpetuates this disorder; however, this proves difficult, as PN is associated with a higher itch intensity than atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.¹⁰ Therefore, most patients attempt multiple forms of treatment for PN, ranging from topical therapies, oral immunosuppressants, and phototherapy to the newest and only medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of PN—dupilumab.^1,7,11 Herein, we provide an updated review of PN with a focus on its epidemiology, histopathology and pathophysiology, comorbidities, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, and current treatment options.

Epidemiology

There are few studies on the epidemiology of PN; however, middle-aged populations with underlying dermatologic or psychiatric disorders tend to be impacted most frequently.^2,12,13 In 2016, it was estimated that almost 88,000 individuals had PN in the United States, with the majority being female; however, this estimate only took into account those aged 18 to 64 years and utilized data from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (IBM Watson Health) from October 2015 to December 2016.¹⁴ More recently, a retrospective database analysis estimated the prevalence of PN in the United States to be anywhere from 36.7 to 43.9 cases per 100,000 individuals. However, this retrospective review utilized the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code; PN has 2 codes associated with the diagnosis, and the coding accuracy is unknown.¹⁵ Sutaria et al¹⁶ looked at racial disparities in patients with PN utilizing data from TriNetX and found that patients who received a diagnosis of PN were more likely to be women, non-Hispanic, and Black compared with control patients. However, these estimates are restricted to the health care organizations within this database.

In 2018, Poland reported an annual prevalence of 6.52 cases per 100,000 individuals,¹⁷ while England reported a yearly prevalence of 3.27 cases per 100,000 individuals.¹⁸ Both countries reported most cases were female. However, these studies are not without limitations. Poland only uses the primary diagnosis code for medical billing to simplify clinical coding, thus underestimating the actual prevalence; furthermore, clinical codes more often than not are assigned by someone other than the diagnosing physician, leaving room for error.¹⁷ In addition, England’s PN estimate utilized diagnosis data from primary care and inpatient datasets, leaving out outpatient datasets in which patients with PN may have been referred and obtained the diagnosis, potentially underestimating the prevalence in this population.¹⁸

In contrast, Korea estimated the annual prevalence of PN to be 4.82 cases per 1000 dermatology outpatients, with the majority being men, based on results from a cross-sectional study among outpatients from the Catholic Medical Center. Although this is the largest health organization in Korea, the scope of this study is limited and lacks data from other medical centers in Korea.¹⁹

Histopathology and Pathophysiology

Almost all cells in the skin are involved in PN: keratinocytes, mast cells, dendritic cells, endothelial cells, lymphocytes, eosinophils, collagen fibers, and nerve fibers.^11,20 Classically, PN manifests as a dome-shaped lesion with hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, and psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with increased thickness of the papillary dermis consisting of coarse collagen with compact interstitial and circumvascular infiltration as well as increased lymphocytes and histocytes in the superficial dermis (Figure 1).²⁰ Hyperkeratosis is thought to be due to either the alteration of keratinocyte structures from scratching or keratinocyte abnormalities triggering PN.²¹ However, the increase in keratinocytes, which secrete nerve growth factor, allows for neuronal hyperplasia within the dermis.²² Nerve growth factor can stimulate keratinocyte proliferation²³ in addition to the upregulation of substance P (SP), a tachykinin that triggers vascular dilation and pruritus in the skin.²⁴ The density of SP nerve fibers in the dermis increases in PN, causing proinflammatory effects, upregulating the immune response to promote endothelial hyperplasia and increased vascularization.²⁵ The increase in these fibers may lead to pruritus associated with PN.^2,26

Many inflammatory cytokines and mediators also have been implicated in PN. Increased messenger RNA expression of IL-4, IL-17, IL-22, and IL-31 has been described in PN lesions.^3,27 Furthermore, studies also have reported increased helper T cell (T_H2) cytokines, including IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and IL-13, in the dermis of PN lesions in patients without a history of atopy.^3,28 These pruritogenic cytokines in conjunction with the SP fibers may create an intractable itch for those with PN. The interaction and culmination of the neural and immune responses make PN a complex condition to treat with the multifactorial interaction of systems. 

Comorbidities

Prurigo nodularis has been associated with a wide array of comorbidities; however, the direction of the relationship between PN and these conditions makes it difficult to discern if PN is a primary or secondary condition.²⁹ Prurigo nodularis commonly has been connected to other inflammatory dermatoses, with a link to atopic dermatitis being the strongest.^5,29 However, PN also has been linked to other pruritic inflammatory cutaneous disorders, including psoriasis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, lichen planus, and dermatitis herpetiformis.^14,29

Huang et al¹⁴ found an increased likelihood of psychiatric illnesses in patients with PN, including eating disorders, nonsuicidal self-injury disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety, and substance abuse disorders. Treatments directed at the neural aspect of PN have included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which also are utilized to treat these mental health disorders.

Furthermore, systemic diseases also have been found to be associated with PN, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.¹⁴ The relationship between PN and systemic conditions may be due to increased systemic inflammation and dysregulation of neural and metabolic functions implicated in these conditions from increased pruritic manifestations.^29,30 However, studies also have connected PN to infectious conditions such as HIV. One study found that patients with PN had 2.68 higher odds of infection with HIV compared to age- and sex-matched controls.¹⁴ It is unknown if these conditions contributed to the development of PN or PN contributed to the development of these disorders.

Clinical Presentations

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that typically manifests with multiple severely pruritic, dome-shaped, firm, hyperpigmented papulonodules with central scale or crust, often with erosion, due to chronic repetitive scratching and picking secondary to pruritic systemic or dermatologic diseases or psychological disorders (Figure 2).^1,2,4,5,8,31 Most often, diagnosis of PN is based on history and physical examination of the lesion; however, biopsies may be performed. These nodules commonly manifest with ulceration distributed symmetrically on extensor extremities in easy-to-reach places, sparing the mid back (called the butterfly sign).⁸ Lesions—either a few or hundreds—can range from a few millimeters to 2 to 3 cm.^8,32 The lesions differ in appearance depending on the pigment in the patient’s skin. In patients with darker skin tones, hyperpigmented or hypopigmented papulonodules are not uncommon, while those with fairer skin tones tend to present with erythema.³¹

Differential Diagnosis

Because of the variation in manifestation of PN, these lesions may resemble other cutaneous conditions. If the lesions are hyperkeratotic, they can mimic hypertrophic lichen planus, which mainfests with hyperkeratotic plaques or nodules on the lower extremities.^8,29 In addition, the histopathology of lichen planus resembles the appearance of PN, with epidermal hyperplasia, hypergranulosis, hyperkeratosis, and increased fibroblasts and capillaries.^8,29

Pemphigoid nodularis is a rare subtype of bullous pemphigoid that exhibits characteristics of PN with pruritic plaques and erosions.^8,29,33 The patient population for pemphigoid nodularis tends to be aged 50 to 60 years, and females are affected more frequently than males. However, pemphigoid nodularis may manifest with blistering and large plaques, which are not seen commonly with PN.²⁹ On histopathology, pemphigoid nodularis deposits IgG and C3 on the basement membrane and has subepidermal clefting, unlike PN.^7,29

Actinic prurigo manifests with pruritic papules or nodules post–UV exposure to unprotected skin.^8,29,33 This rare condition usually manifests with cheilitis and conjunctivitis. Unlike PN, which commonly affects elderly populations, actinic prurigo typically is found in young females.^8,29 Cytologic examination shows hyperkeratosis, spongiosis, and acanthosis of the epidermis with lymphocytic perivascular infiltration of the dermis.³⁴

Neurotic excoriations also tend to mimic PN with raised excoriated lesions; however, this disorder is due to neurotic picking of the skin without associated pruritus or true hyperkeratosis.^8,29,33 Histopathology shows epidermal crusting with inflammation of the upper dermis.³⁵

Infiltrative cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) may imitate PN in appearance. It manifests as tender, ulcerated, scaly plaques or nodules. Histopathology shows cytologic atypia with an infiltrative architectural pattern and presence of collections of compact keratin and parakeratin (called keratin pearls).

Keratoacanthomas can resemble PN lesions. They usually manifest as nodules measuring 1 to 2 cm in diameter and 0.5 cm thick, resembling crateriform tumors.³⁶ On histopathology, KAs can resemble SCCs; however, KAs tend to manifest more frequently with a keratin-filled crater with a ground-glass appearance.³⁶

Inverted follicular keratosis commonly manifests on the face in elderly men as a single, flesh-colored, verrucous papule that may resemble PN. However, cytology of inverted follicular keratosis is characterized by proliferation and squamous eddies.³⁷ Consideration of the histologic findings and clinical appearance are important to differentiate between PN and cutaneous SCC.

Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia is a benign condition that manifests as a plaque or nodule with crust, scale, or ulceration. Histologically, this condition presents with hyperplastic proliferation of the epidermis and adnexal epithelium.³⁸ The clinical and histologic appearance can mimic PN and other cutaneous eruptions with epidermal hyperplasia. 

In clinical cases that are resistant to treatment, biopsy is the best approach to diagnose the lesion. Due to similarities in physical appearance and superficial histologic presentation of PN, KAs from SCC, hypertrophic lichen planus, and other hyperkeratotic lesions, the biopsy should be taken at the base of the lesion to sample deeper layers of skin to differentiate these dermatologic disorders.

Management

Current treatments for PN yield varied results. Many patients with moderate to severe PN attempt multiple therapies before seeing improvement.³¹ Treatments include topical, oral, and injectable medications and are either directed at the neural or immune components of PN due to the interplay between increased nerve fibers in the lesions (neural axis) as well as increases in cytokines and other immunologic mediators (immune axis) of this condition. However, the FDA recently approved the first treatment for PN—dupilumab—which is an injectable IL-4 receptor antagonist directed at the immunologic interactions affiliated with PN.

Immune-Mediated Topical Therapies—Immunologic topical therapies include corticosteroids, calcipotriol, and calcineurin inhibitors. Studies that have analyzed these treatments are limited to case reports and small intraindividual and randomized controlled trials (Table 1). Topical therapies usually are first-line agents for most patients. Adverse effects include transient irritation of the skin.^40,42,43

Supplements—N-acetyl cysteine is an over-the-counter supplement that has been reported to improve symptoms in patients with skin-picking disorders.⁴⁸ The mechanism of action includes antioxidant effects such as decreasing reactive oxygen species, decreasing inflammatory markers, regulating neurotransmitters, and inhibiting hyperkeratosis.⁴⁹ N-acetyl cysteine has been poorly studied for its application in PN. A small study of 3 patients with subacute PN receiving 1200 mg of oral N-acetyl cysteine reported varying levels of improvement in skin appearance and reduction in skin picking.⁵⁰

Phototherapy—Phototherapy, a typical first- or second-line treatment modality for PN, targets both the neural- and immune-mediated aspects associated with pruritus in PN (Table 1).⁵¹ UV light can penetrate through the epidermal layer of the skin and reach the keratinocytes, which play a role in the immune-related response of PN. In addition, the cutaneous sensory nerves are located in the upper dermal layer, from which nerve fibers grow and penetrate into the epidermis, thereby interacting with the keratinocytes where pruritic signals are transmitted from the periphery up to the brain.⁵¹

Studies analyzing the effects of phototherapy on PN are limited to case series and a small randomized controlled trial. However, this trial has shown improvements in pruritus in the participants. Adverse effects include transient burning and erythema at the treated sites.^44,45

Immune-Mediated Oral Therapies—Immunologic-targeted oral therapies include bilastine, methotrexate, and cyclosporine (Table 2).^52,53 Bilastine efficacy was analyzed in a small phase 3, open-label, multicenter study in Japan; however, patients were allowed to use topical steroids in conjunction with the oral antihistamine.⁵⁴ Methotrexate and cyclosporine are immunosuppressive medications and were analyzed in small retrospective studies. Both treatments yielded notable relief for patients; however, 38.5% (15/39) of patients receiving methotrexate experienced adverse events, and 50.0% (4/8) experienced adverse events with cyclosporine.^52,53

Thalidomide was studied in a small retrospective case review that showed notable improvement in PN. Dosages of thalidomide varied, but on average the dose was 100 mg/d. However, greater than 50% of patients experienced at least 1 adverse effect with this treatment.⁶³

A study performed in Italy showed promising results for patients treated with pregabalin, with 70.0% (21/30) continuing to take pregabalin for almost 2 years following completion of the initial 3-month trial.⁵⁵ Naltrexone decreased pruritus in more than half of patients (9/17).⁵⁹ Amitriptyline yielded improvements in patients with PN; however, disease recurred in 5 patients (29%) after 7 months.⁶² A study performed in Germany reported promising results for paroxetine and fluvoxamine; however, some patients enrolled in the study had some form of psychiatric disorder.⁶¹

Serlopitant, aprepitant, and nalbuphine were studied in randomized controlled trials. The serlopitant trials were the largest of the neurally mediated oral medication studies; one showed substantial improvement in patients with PN,⁵⁶ while the most recent trial did not show significant improvement (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03546816).⁵⁷ On the other hand, aprepitant showed no major difference between the experimental and placebo groups.⁵⁸ Nalbuphine 162 mg twice daily showed greater improvement in PN than nalbuphine 81 mg twice daily.⁶⁰

Immune-Mediated Injectable Therapies—Immune-targeted injectables include nemolizumab and dupilumab (Table 2). Nemolizumab is an IL-31 antagonist that has been studied in a small randomized controlled trial that showed great success in decreasing pruritus associated with PN.⁶⁴ IL-31 has been implicated in PN, and inhibition of the IL-31 receptor has been shown to disrupt the itch-scratch cycle of PN. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody against the IL-4 and IL-13 receptors, and it is the only FDA-approved treatment for PN.⁶⁵ Blockage of these protein receptors decreases type 2 inflammation and chronic pruritus.^66,67 Dupilumab is FDA approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis and recently was approved for adults with PN. Dupilumab acts to block the shared α-subunit of the pruritogenic cytokines IL-4 and IL-13 pathways,²⁹ thereby breaking the itch-scratch cycle associated with PN and allowing for the healing of these lesions. Results from 2 clinical trials showed substantially reduced itch in patients with PN.⁶⁵ Dupilumab also was approved by the European Medicines Agency for moderate to severe PN.⁶⁸

Conclusion

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition that affects patient quality of life and can mimic various dermatologic conditions. The epidemiology and pathophysiology of PN have not been fully expounded. More research should be conducted to determine the underpinnings of PN to help identify more consistently effective therapies for this complex condition.

Prurigo nodularis (PN)(also called chronic nodular prurigo, prurigo nodularis of Hyde, or picker’s nodules) was first characterized by James Hyde in 1909.^1-3 Prurigo nodularis manifests with symmetrical, intensely pruritic, eroded, or hyperkeratotic nodules or papules on the extremities and trunk.^1,2,4,5 Studies have shown that individuals with PN experience pruritus, sleep loss, decreased social functioning from the appearance of the nodules, and a higher incidence of anxiety and depression, causing a negative impact on their quality of life.^2,6 In addition, the manifestation of PN has been linked to neurologic and psychiatric disorders; however, PN also can be idiopathic and manifest without underlying illnesses.^2,6,7

Prurigo nodularis has been associated with other dermatologic conditions such as atopic dermatitis (up to 50%), lichen planus, keratoacanthomas (KAs), and bullous pemphigoid.^7-9 It also has been linked to systemic diseases in 38% to 50% of cases, including chronic kidney disease, liver disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, malignancies (hematopoietic, liver, and skin), and HIV infection.^6,8,10

The pathophysiology of PN is highly complex and has yet to be fully elucidated. It is thought to be due to dysregulation and interaction of the increase in neural and immunologic responses of proinflammatory and pruritogenic cytokines.^2,11 Treatments aim to break the itch-scratch cycle that perpetuates this disorder; however, this proves difficult, as PN is associated with a higher itch intensity than atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.¹⁰ Therefore, most patients attempt multiple forms of treatment for PN, ranging from topical therapies, oral immunosuppressants, and phototherapy to the newest and only medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of PN—dupilumab.^1,7,11 Herein, we provide an updated review of PN with a focus on its epidemiology, histopathology and pathophysiology, comorbidities, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, and current treatment options.

Epidemiology

There are few studies on the epidemiology of PN; however, middle-aged populations with underlying dermatologic or psychiatric disorders tend to be impacted most frequently.^2,12,13 In 2016, it was estimated that almost 88,000 individuals had PN in the United States, with the majority being female; however, this estimate only took into account those aged 18 to 64 years and utilized data from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (IBM Watson Health) from October 2015 to December 2016.¹⁴ More recently, a retrospective database analysis estimated the prevalence of PN in the United States to be anywhere from 36.7 to 43.9 cases per 100,000 individuals. However, this retrospective review utilized the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code; PN has 2 codes associated with the diagnosis, and the coding accuracy is unknown.¹⁵ Sutaria et al¹⁶ looked at racial disparities in patients with PN utilizing data from TriNetX and found that patients who received a diagnosis of PN were more likely to be women, non-Hispanic, and Black compared with control patients. However, these estimates are restricted to the health care organizations within this database.

In 2018, Poland reported an annual prevalence of 6.52 cases per 100,000 individuals,¹⁷ while England reported a yearly prevalence of 3.27 cases per 100,000 individuals.¹⁸ Both countries reported most cases were female. However, these studies are not without limitations. Poland only uses the primary diagnosis code for medical billing to simplify clinical coding, thus underestimating the actual prevalence; furthermore, clinical codes more often than not are assigned by someone other than the diagnosing physician, leaving room for error.¹⁷ In addition, England’s PN estimate utilized diagnosis data from primary care and inpatient datasets, leaving out outpatient datasets in which patients with PN may have been referred and obtained the diagnosis, potentially underestimating the prevalence in this population.¹⁸

In contrast, Korea estimated the annual prevalence of PN to be 4.82 cases per 1000 dermatology outpatients, with the majority being men, based on results from a cross-sectional study among outpatients from the Catholic Medical Center. Although this is the largest health organization in Korea, the scope of this study is limited and lacks data from other medical centers in Korea.¹⁹

Histopathology and Pathophysiology

Almost all cells in the skin are involved in PN: keratinocytes, mast cells, dendritic cells, endothelial cells, lymphocytes, eosinophils, collagen fibers, and nerve fibers.^11,20 Classically, PN manifests as a dome-shaped lesion with hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, and psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with increased thickness of the papillary dermis consisting of coarse collagen with compact interstitial and circumvascular infiltration as well as increased lymphocytes and histocytes in the superficial dermis (Figure 1).²⁰ Hyperkeratosis is thought to be due to either the alteration of keratinocyte structures from scratching or keratinocyte abnormalities triggering PN.²¹ However, the increase in keratinocytes, which secrete nerve growth factor, allows for neuronal hyperplasia within the dermis.²² Nerve growth factor can stimulate keratinocyte proliferation²³ in addition to the upregulation of substance P (SP), a tachykinin that triggers vascular dilation and pruritus in the skin.²⁴ The density of SP nerve fibers in the dermis increases in PN, causing proinflammatory effects, upregulating the immune response to promote endothelial hyperplasia and increased vascularization.²⁵ The increase in these fibers may lead to pruritus associated with PN.^2,26

Many inflammatory cytokines and mediators also have been implicated in PN. Increased messenger RNA expression of IL-4, IL-17, IL-22, and IL-31 has been described in PN lesions.^3,27 Furthermore, studies also have reported increased helper T cell (T_H2) cytokines, including IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and IL-13, in the dermis of PN lesions in patients without a history of atopy.^3,28 These pruritogenic cytokines in conjunction with the SP fibers may create an intractable itch for those with PN. The interaction and culmination of the neural and immune responses make PN a complex condition to treat with the multifactorial interaction of systems. 

Comorbidities

Prurigo nodularis has been associated with a wide array of comorbidities; however, the direction of the relationship between PN and these conditions makes it difficult to discern if PN is a primary or secondary condition.²⁹ Prurigo nodularis commonly has been connected to other inflammatory dermatoses, with a link to atopic dermatitis being the strongest.^5,29 However, PN also has been linked to other pruritic inflammatory cutaneous disorders, including psoriasis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, lichen planus, and dermatitis herpetiformis.^14,29

Huang et al¹⁴ found an increased likelihood of psychiatric illnesses in patients with PN, including eating disorders, nonsuicidal self-injury disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety, and substance abuse disorders. Treatments directed at the neural aspect of PN have included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which also are utilized to treat these mental health disorders.

Furthermore, systemic diseases also have been found to be associated with PN, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.¹⁴ The relationship between PN and systemic conditions may be due to increased systemic inflammation and dysregulation of neural and metabolic functions implicated in these conditions from increased pruritic manifestations.^29,30 However, studies also have connected PN to infectious conditions such as HIV. One study found that patients with PN had 2.68 higher odds of infection with HIV compared to age- and sex-matched controls.¹⁴ It is unknown if these conditions contributed to the development of PN or PN contributed to the development of these disorders.

Clinical Presentations

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that typically manifests with multiple severely pruritic, dome-shaped, firm, hyperpigmented papulonodules with central scale or crust, often with erosion, due to chronic repetitive scratching and picking secondary to pruritic systemic or dermatologic diseases or psychological disorders (Figure 2).^1,2,4,5,8,31 Most often, diagnosis of PN is based on history and physical examination of the lesion; however, biopsies may be performed. These nodules commonly manifest with ulceration distributed symmetrically on extensor extremities in easy-to-reach places, sparing the mid back (called the butterfly sign).⁸ Lesions—either a few or hundreds—can range from a few millimeters to 2 to 3 cm.^8,32 The lesions differ in appearance depending on the pigment in the patient’s skin. In patients with darker skin tones, hyperpigmented or hypopigmented papulonodules are not uncommon, while those with fairer skin tones tend to present with erythema.³¹

Differential Diagnosis

Because of the variation in manifestation of PN, these lesions may resemble other cutaneous conditions. If the lesions are hyperkeratotic, they can mimic hypertrophic lichen planus, which mainfests with hyperkeratotic plaques or nodules on the lower extremities.^8,29 In addition, the histopathology of lichen planus resembles the appearance of PN, with epidermal hyperplasia, hypergranulosis, hyperkeratosis, and increased fibroblasts and capillaries.^8,29

Pemphigoid nodularis is a rare subtype of bullous pemphigoid that exhibits characteristics of PN with pruritic plaques and erosions.^8,29,33 The patient population for pemphigoid nodularis tends to be aged 50 to 60 years, and females are affected more frequently than males. However, pemphigoid nodularis may manifest with blistering and large plaques, which are not seen commonly with PN.²⁹ On histopathology, pemphigoid nodularis deposits IgG and C3 on the basement membrane and has subepidermal clefting, unlike PN.^7,29

Actinic prurigo manifests with pruritic papules or nodules post–UV exposure to unprotected skin.^8,29,33 This rare condition usually manifests with cheilitis and conjunctivitis. Unlike PN, which commonly affects elderly populations, actinic prurigo typically is found in young females.^8,29 Cytologic examination shows hyperkeratosis, spongiosis, and acanthosis of the epidermis with lymphocytic perivascular infiltration of the dermis.³⁴

Neurotic excoriations also tend to mimic PN with raised excoriated lesions; however, this disorder is due to neurotic picking of the skin without associated pruritus or true hyperkeratosis.^8,29,33 Histopathology shows epidermal crusting with inflammation of the upper dermis.³⁵

Infiltrative cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) may imitate PN in appearance. It manifests as tender, ulcerated, scaly plaques or nodules. Histopathology shows cytologic atypia with an infiltrative architectural pattern and presence of collections of compact keratin and parakeratin (called keratin pearls).

Keratoacanthomas can resemble PN lesions. They usually manifest as nodules measuring 1 to 2 cm in diameter and 0.5 cm thick, resembling crateriform tumors.³⁶ On histopathology, KAs can resemble SCCs; however, KAs tend to manifest more frequently with a keratin-filled crater with a ground-glass appearance.³⁶

Inverted follicular keratosis commonly manifests on the face in elderly men as a single, flesh-colored, verrucous papule that may resemble PN. However, cytology of inverted follicular keratosis is characterized by proliferation and squamous eddies.³⁷ Consideration of the histologic findings and clinical appearance are important to differentiate between PN and cutaneous SCC.

Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia is a benign condition that manifests as a plaque or nodule with crust, scale, or ulceration. Histologically, this condition presents with hyperplastic proliferation of the epidermis and adnexal epithelium.³⁸ The clinical and histologic appearance can mimic PN and other cutaneous eruptions with epidermal hyperplasia. 

In clinical cases that are resistant to treatment, biopsy is the best approach to diagnose the lesion. Due to similarities in physical appearance and superficial histologic presentation of PN, KAs from SCC, hypertrophic lichen planus, and other hyperkeratotic lesions, the biopsy should be taken at the base of the lesion to sample deeper layers of skin to differentiate these dermatologic disorders.

Management

Current treatments for PN yield varied results. Many patients with moderate to severe PN attempt multiple therapies before seeing improvement.³¹ Treatments include topical, oral, and injectable medications and are either directed at the neural or immune components of PN due to the interplay between increased nerve fibers in the lesions (neural axis) as well as increases in cytokines and other immunologic mediators (immune axis) of this condition. However, the FDA recently approved the first treatment for PN—dupilumab—which is an injectable IL-4 receptor antagonist directed at the immunologic interactions affiliated with PN.

Immune-Mediated Topical Therapies—Immunologic topical therapies include corticosteroids, calcipotriol, and calcineurin inhibitors. Studies that have analyzed these treatments are limited to case reports and small intraindividual and randomized controlled trials (Table 1). Topical therapies usually are first-line agents for most patients. Adverse effects include transient irritation of the skin.^40,42,43

Supplements—N-acetyl cysteine is an over-the-counter supplement that has been reported to improve symptoms in patients with skin-picking disorders.⁴⁸ The mechanism of action includes antioxidant effects such as decreasing reactive oxygen species, decreasing inflammatory markers, regulating neurotransmitters, and inhibiting hyperkeratosis.⁴⁹ N-acetyl cysteine has been poorly studied for its application in PN. A small study of 3 patients with subacute PN receiving 1200 mg of oral N-acetyl cysteine reported varying levels of improvement in skin appearance and reduction in skin picking.⁵⁰

Phototherapy—Phototherapy, a typical first- or second-line treatment modality for PN, targets both the neural- and immune-mediated aspects associated with pruritus in PN (Table 1).⁵¹ UV light can penetrate through the epidermal layer of the skin and reach the keratinocytes, which play a role in the immune-related response of PN. In addition, the cutaneous sensory nerves are located in the upper dermal layer, from which nerve fibers grow and penetrate into the epidermis, thereby interacting with the keratinocytes where pruritic signals are transmitted from the periphery up to the brain.⁵¹

Studies analyzing the effects of phototherapy on PN are limited to case series and a small randomized controlled trial. However, this trial has shown improvements in pruritus in the participants. Adverse effects include transient burning and erythema at the treated sites.^44,45

Immune-Mediated Oral Therapies—Immunologic-targeted oral therapies include bilastine, methotrexate, and cyclosporine (Table 2).^52,53 Bilastine efficacy was analyzed in a small phase 3, open-label, multicenter study in Japan; however, patients were allowed to use topical steroids in conjunction with the oral antihistamine.⁵⁴ Methotrexate and cyclosporine are immunosuppressive medications and were analyzed in small retrospective studies. Both treatments yielded notable relief for patients; however, 38.5% (15/39) of patients receiving methotrexate experienced adverse events, and 50.0% (4/8) experienced adverse events with cyclosporine.^52,53

Thalidomide was studied in a small retrospective case review that showed notable improvement in PN. Dosages of thalidomide varied, but on average the dose was 100 mg/d. However, greater than 50% of patients experienced at least 1 adverse effect with this treatment.⁶³

A study performed in Italy showed promising results for patients treated with pregabalin, with 70.0% (21/30) continuing to take pregabalin for almost 2 years following completion of the initial 3-month trial.⁵⁵ Naltrexone decreased pruritus in more than half of patients (9/17).⁵⁹ Amitriptyline yielded improvements in patients with PN; however, disease recurred in 5 patients (29%) after 7 months.⁶² A study performed in Germany reported promising results for paroxetine and fluvoxamine; however, some patients enrolled in the study had some form of psychiatric disorder.⁶¹

Serlopitant, aprepitant, and nalbuphine were studied in randomized controlled trials. The serlopitant trials were the largest of the neurally mediated oral medication studies; one showed substantial improvement in patients with PN,⁵⁶ while the most recent trial did not show significant improvement (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03546816).⁵⁷ On the other hand, aprepitant showed no major difference between the experimental and placebo groups.⁵⁸ Nalbuphine 162 mg twice daily showed greater improvement in PN than nalbuphine 81 mg twice daily.⁶⁰

Immune-Mediated Injectable Therapies—Immune-targeted injectables include nemolizumab and dupilumab (Table 2). Nemolizumab is an IL-31 antagonist that has been studied in a small randomized controlled trial that showed great success in decreasing pruritus associated with PN.⁶⁴ IL-31 has been implicated in PN, and inhibition of the IL-31 receptor has been shown to disrupt the itch-scratch cycle of PN. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody against the IL-4 and IL-13 receptors, and it is the only FDA-approved treatment for PN.⁶⁵ Blockage of these protein receptors decreases type 2 inflammation and chronic pruritus.^66,67 Dupilumab is FDA approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis and recently was approved for adults with PN. Dupilumab acts to block the shared α-subunit of the pruritogenic cytokines IL-4 and IL-13 pathways,²⁹ thereby breaking the itch-scratch cycle associated with PN and allowing for the healing of these lesions. Results from 2 clinical trials showed substantially reduced itch in patients with PN.⁶⁵ Dupilumab also was approved by the European Medicines Agency for moderate to severe PN.⁶⁸

Conclusion

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition that affects patient quality of life and can mimic various dermatologic conditions. The epidemiology and pathophysiology of PN have not been fully expounded. More research should be conducted to determine the underpinnings of PN to help identify more consistently effective therapies for this complex condition.

Prurigo nodularis (PN)(also called chronic nodular prurigo, prurigo nodularis of Hyde, or picker’s nodules) was first characterized by James Hyde in 1909.^1-3 Prurigo nodularis manifests with symmetrical, intensely pruritic, eroded, or hyperkeratotic nodules or papules on the extremities and trunk.^1,2,4,5 Studies have shown that individuals with PN experience pruritus, sleep loss, decreased social functioning from the appearance of the nodules, and a higher incidence of anxiety and depression, causing a negative impact on their quality of life.^2,6 In addition, the manifestation of PN has been linked to neurologic and psychiatric disorders; however, PN also can be idiopathic and manifest without underlying illnesses.^2,6,7

Prurigo nodularis has been associated with other dermatologic conditions such as atopic dermatitis (up to 50%), lichen planus, keratoacanthomas (KAs), and bullous pemphigoid.^7-9 It also has been linked to systemic diseases in 38% to 50% of cases, including chronic kidney disease, liver disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, malignancies (hematopoietic, liver, and skin), and HIV infection.^6,8,10

The pathophysiology of PN is highly complex and has yet to be fully elucidated. It is thought to be due to dysregulation and interaction of the increase in neural and immunologic responses of proinflammatory and pruritogenic cytokines.^2,11 Treatments aim to break the itch-scratch cycle that perpetuates this disorder; however, this proves difficult, as PN is associated with a higher itch intensity than atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.¹⁰ Therefore, most patients attempt multiple forms of treatment for PN, ranging from topical therapies, oral immunosuppressants, and phototherapy to the newest and only medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of PN—dupilumab.^1,7,11 Herein, we provide an updated review of PN with a focus on its epidemiology, histopathology and pathophysiology, comorbidities, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, and current treatment options.

Epidemiology

There are few studies on the epidemiology of PN; however, middle-aged populations with underlying dermatologic or psychiatric disorders tend to be impacted most frequently.^2,12,13 In 2016, it was estimated that almost 88,000 individuals had PN in the United States, with the majority being female; however, this estimate only took into account those aged 18 to 64 years and utilized data from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (IBM Watson Health) from October 2015 to December 2016.¹⁴ More recently, a retrospective database analysis estimated the prevalence of PN in the United States to be anywhere from 36.7 to 43.9 cases per 100,000 individuals. However, this retrospective review utilized the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code; PN has 2 codes associated with the diagnosis, and the coding accuracy is unknown.¹⁵ Sutaria et al¹⁶ looked at racial disparities in patients with PN utilizing data from TriNetX and found that patients who received a diagnosis of PN were more likely to be women, non-Hispanic, and Black compared with control patients. However, these estimates are restricted to the health care organizations within this database.

In 2018, Poland reported an annual prevalence of 6.52 cases per 100,000 individuals,¹⁷ while England reported a yearly prevalence of 3.27 cases per 100,000 individuals.¹⁸ Both countries reported most cases were female. However, these studies are not without limitations. Poland only uses the primary diagnosis code for medical billing to simplify clinical coding, thus underestimating the actual prevalence; furthermore, clinical codes more often than not are assigned by someone other than the diagnosing physician, leaving room for error.¹⁷ In addition, England’s PN estimate utilized diagnosis data from primary care and inpatient datasets, leaving out outpatient datasets in which patients with PN may have been referred and obtained the diagnosis, potentially underestimating the prevalence in this population.¹⁸

In contrast, Korea estimated the annual prevalence of PN to be 4.82 cases per 1000 dermatology outpatients, with the majority being men, based on results from a cross-sectional study among outpatients from the Catholic Medical Center. Although this is the largest health organization in Korea, the scope of this study is limited and lacks data from other medical centers in Korea.¹⁹

Histopathology and Pathophysiology

Almost all cells in the skin are involved in PN: keratinocytes, mast cells, dendritic cells, endothelial cells, lymphocytes, eosinophils, collagen fibers, and nerve fibers.^11,20 Classically, PN manifests as a dome-shaped lesion with hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, and psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with increased thickness of the papillary dermis consisting of coarse collagen with compact interstitial and circumvascular infiltration as well as increased lymphocytes and histocytes in the superficial dermis (Figure 1).²⁰ Hyperkeratosis is thought to be due to either the alteration of keratinocyte structures from scratching or keratinocyte abnormalities triggering PN.²¹ However, the increase in keratinocytes, which secrete nerve growth factor, allows for neuronal hyperplasia within the dermis.²² Nerve growth factor can stimulate keratinocyte proliferation²³ in addition to the upregulation of substance P (SP), a tachykinin that triggers vascular dilation and pruritus in the skin.²⁴ The density of SP nerve fibers in the dermis increases in PN, causing proinflammatory effects, upregulating the immune response to promote endothelial hyperplasia and increased vascularization.²⁵ The increase in these fibers may lead to pruritus associated with PN.^2,26

Many inflammatory cytokines and mediators also have been implicated in PN. Increased messenger RNA expression of IL-4, IL-17, IL-22, and IL-31 has been described in PN lesions.^3,27 Furthermore, studies also have reported increased helper T cell (T_H2) cytokines, including IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and IL-13, in the dermis of PN lesions in patients without a history of atopy.^3,28 These pruritogenic cytokines in conjunction with the SP fibers may create an intractable itch for those with PN. The interaction and culmination of the neural and immune responses make PN a complex condition to treat with the multifactorial interaction of systems. 

Comorbidities

Prurigo nodularis has been associated with a wide array of comorbidities; however, the direction of the relationship between PN and these conditions makes it difficult to discern if PN is a primary or secondary condition.²⁹ Prurigo nodularis commonly has been connected to other inflammatory dermatoses, with a link to atopic dermatitis being the strongest.^5,29 However, PN also has been linked to other pruritic inflammatory cutaneous disorders, including psoriasis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, lichen planus, and dermatitis herpetiformis.^14,29

Huang et al¹⁴ found an increased likelihood of psychiatric illnesses in patients with PN, including eating disorders, nonsuicidal self-injury disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety, and substance abuse disorders. Treatments directed at the neural aspect of PN have included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which also are utilized to treat these mental health disorders.

Furthermore, systemic diseases also have been found to be associated with PN, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.¹⁴ The relationship between PN and systemic conditions may be due to increased systemic inflammation and dysregulation of neural and metabolic functions implicated in these conditions from increased pruritic manifestations.^29,30 However, studies also have connected PN to infectious conditions such as HIV. One study found that patients with PN had 2.68 higher odds of infection with HIV compared to age- and sex-matched controls.¹⁴ It is unknown if these conditions contributed to the development of PN or PN contributed to the development of these disorders.

Clinical Presentations

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that typically manifests with multiple severely pruritic, dome-shaped, firm, hyperpigmented papulonodules with central scale or crust, often with erosion, due to chronic repetitive scratching and picking secondary to pruritic systemic or dermatologic diseases or psychological disorders (Figure 2).^1,2,4,5,8,31 Most often, diagnosis of PN is based on history and physical examination of the lesion; however, biopsies may be performed. These nodules commonly manifest with ulceration distributed symmetrically on extensor extremities in easy-to-reach places, sparing the mid back (called the butterfly sign).⁸ Lesions—either a few or hundreds—can range from a few millimeters to 2 to 3 cm.^8,32 The lesions differ in appearance depending on the pigment in the patient’s skin. In patients with darker skin tones, hyperpigmented or hypopigmented papulonodules are not uncommon, while those with fairer skin tones tend to present with erythema.³¹

Differential Diagnosis

Because of the variation in manifestation of PN, these lesions may resemble other cutaneous conditions. If the lesions are hyperkeratotic, they can mimic hypertrophic lichen planus, which mainfests with hyperkeratotic plaques or nodules on the lower extremities.^8,29 In addition, the histopathology of lichen planus resembles the appearance of PN, with epidermal hyperplasia, hypergranulosis, hyperkeratosis, and increased fibroblasts and capillaries.^8,29

Pemphigoid nodularis is a rare subtype of bullous pemphigoid that exhibits characteristics of PN with pruritic plaques and erosions.^8,29,33 The patient population for pemphigoid nodularis tends to be aged 50 to 60 years, and females are affected more frequently than males. However, pemphigoid nodularis may manifest with blistering and large plaques, which are not seen commonly with PN.²⁹ On histopathology, pemphigoid nodularis deposits IgG and C3 on the basement membrane and has subepidermal clefting, unlike PN.^7,29

Actinic prurigo manifests with pruritic papules or nodules post–UV exposure to unprotected skin.^8,29,33 This rare condition usually manifests with cheilitis and conjunctivitis. Unlike PN, which commonly affects elderly populations, actinic prurigo typically is found in young females.^8,29 Cytologic examination shows hyperkeratosis, spongiosis, and acanthosis of the epidermis with lymphocytic perivascular infiltration of the dermis.³⁴

Neurotic excoriations also tend to mimic PN with raised excoriated lesions; however, this disorder is due to neurotic picking of the skin without associated pruritus or true hyperkeratosis.^8,29,33 Histopathology shows epidermal crusting with inflammation of the upper dermis.³⁵

Infiltrative cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) may imitate PN in appearance. It manifests as tender, ulcerated, scaly plaques or nodules. Histopathology shows cytologic atypia with an infiltrative architectural pattern and presence of collections of compact keratin and parakeratin (called keratin pearls).

Keratoacanthomas can resemble PN lesions. They usually manifest as nodules measuring 1 to 2 cm in diameter and 0.5 cm thick, resembling crateriform tumors.³⁶ On histopathology, KAs can resemble SCCs; however, KAs tend to manifest more frequently with a keratin-filled crater with a ground-glass appearance.³⁶

Inverted follicular keratosis commonly manifests on the face in elderly men as a single, flesh-colored, verrucous papule that may resemble PN. However, cytology of inverted follicular keratosis is characterized by proliferation and squamous eddies.³⁷ Consideration of the histologic findings and clinical appearance are important to differentiate between PN and cutaneous SCC.

Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia is a benign condition that manifests as a plaque or nodule with crust, scale, or ulceration. Histologically, this condition presents with hyperplastic proliferation of the epidermis and adnexal epithelium.³⁸ The clinical and histologic appearance can mimic PN and other cutaneous eruptions with epidermal hyperplasia. 

In clinical cases that are resistant to treatment, biopsy is the best approach to diagnose the lesion. Due to similarities in physical appearance and superficial histologic presentation of PN, KAs from SCC, hypertrophic lichen planus, and other hyperkeratotic lesions, the biopsy should be taken at the base of the lesion to sample deeper layers of skin to differentiate these dermatologic disorders.

Management

Current treatments for PN yield varied results. Many patients with moderate to severe PN attempt multiple therapies before seeing improvement.³¹ Treatments include topical, oral, and injectable medications and are either directed at the neural or immune components of PN due to the interplay between increased nerve fibers in the lesions (neural axis) as well as increases in cytokines and other immunologic mediators (immune axis) of this condition. However, the FDA recently approved the first treatment for PN—dupilumab—which is an injectable IL-4 receptor antagonist directed at the immunologic interactions affiliated with PN.

Immune-Mediated Topical Therapies—Immunologic topical therapies include corticosteroids, calcipotriol, and calcineurin inhibitors. Studies that have analyzed these treatments are limited to case reports and small intraindividual and randomized controlled trials (Table 1). Topical therapies usually are first-line agents for most patients. Adverse effects include transient irritation of the skin.^40,42,43

Supplements—N-acetyl cysteine is an over-the-counter supplement that has been reported to improve symptoms in patients with skin-picking disorders.⁴⁸ The mechanism of action includes antioxidant effects such as decreasing reactive oxygen species, decreasing inflammatory markers, regulating neurotransmitters, and inhibiting hyperkeratosis.⁴⁹ N-acetyl cysteine has been poorly studied for its application in PN. A small study of 3 patients with subacute PN receiving 1200 mg of oral N-acetyl cysteine reported varying levels of improvement in skin appearance and reduction in skin picking.⁵⁰

Phototherapy—Phototherapy, a typical first- or second-line treatment modality for PN, targets both the neural- and immune-mediated aspects associated with pruritus in PN (Table 1).⁵¹ UV light can penetrate through the epidermal layer of the skin and reach the keratinocytes, which play a role in the immune-related response of PN. In addition, the cutaneous sensory nerves are located in the upper dermal layer, from which nerve fibers grow and penetrate into the epidermis, thereby interacting with the keratinocytes where pruritic signals are transmitted from the periphery up to the brain.⁵¹

Studies analyzing the effects of phototherapy on PN are limited to case series and a small randomized controlled trial. However, this trial has shown improvements in pruritus in the participants. Adverse effects include transient burning and erythema at the treated sites.^44,45

Immune-Mediated Oral Therapies—Immunologic-targeted oral therapies include bilastine, methotrexate, and cyclosporine (Table 2).^52,53 Bilastine efficacy was analyzed in a small phase 3, open-label, multicenter study in Japan; however, patients were allowed to use topical steroids in conjunction with the oral antihistamine.⁵⁴ Methotrexate and cyclosporine are immunosuppressive medications and were analyzed in small retrospective studies. Both treatments yielded notable relief for patients; however, 38.5% (15/39) of patients receiving methotrexate experienced adverse events, and 50.0% (4/8) experienced adverse events with cyclosporine.^52,53

Thalidomide was studied in a small retrospective case review that showed notable improvement in PN. Dosages of thalidomide varied, but on average the dose was 100 mg/d. However, greater than 50% of patients experienced at least 1 adverse effect with this treatment.⁶³

A study performed in Italy showed promising results for patients treated with pregabalin, with 70.0% (21/30) continuing to take pregabalin for almost 2 years following completion of the initial 3-month trial.⁵⁵ Naltrexone decreased pruritus in more than half of patients (9/17).⁵⁹ Amitriptyline yielded improvements in patients with PN; however, disease recurred in 5 patients (29%) after 7 months.⁶² A study performed in Germany reported promising results for paroxetine and fluvoxamine; however, some patients enrolled in the study had some form of psychiatric disorder.⁶¹

Serlopitant, aprepitant, and nalbuphine were studied in randomized controlled trials. The serlopitant trials were the largest of the neurally mediated oral medication studies; one showed substantial improvement in patients with PN,⁵⁶ while the most recent trial did not show significant improvement (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03546816).⁵⁷ On the other hand, aprepitant showed no major difference between the experimental and placebo groups.⁵⁸ Nalbuphine 162 mg twice daily showed greater improvement in PN than nalbuphine 81 mg twice daily.⁶⁰

Immune-Mediated Injectable Therapies—Immune-targeted injectables include nemolizumab and dupilumab (Table 2). Nemolizumab is an IL-31 antagonist that has been studied in a small randomized controlled trial that showed great success in decreasing pruritus associated with PN.⁶⁴ IL-31 has been implicated in PN, and inhibition of the IL-31 receptor has been shown to disrupt the itch-scratch cycle of PN. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody against the IL-4 and IL-13 receptors, and it is the only FDA-approved treatment for PN.⁶⁵ Blockage of these protein receptors decreases type 2 inflammation and chronic pruritus.^66,67 Dupilumab is FDA approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis and recently was approved for adults with PN. Dupilumab acts to block the shared α-subunit of the pruritogenic cytokines IL-4 and IL-13 pathways,²⁹ thereby breaking the itch-scratch cycle associated with PN and allowing for the healing of these lesions. Results from 2 clinical trials showed substantially reduced itch in patients with PN.⁶⁵ Dupilumab also was approved by the European Medicines Agency for moderate to severe PN.⁶⁸

Conclusion

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition that affects patient quality of life and can mimic various dermatologic conditions. The epidemiology and pathophysiology of PN have not been fully expounded. More research should be conducted to determine the underpinnings of PN to help identify more consistently effective therapies for this complex condition.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is a rare papulosquamous condition with an unknown pathogenesis and limited efficacy data, which can make treatment challenging. Some cases of PRP spontaneously resolve in a few months, which is most common in the pediatric population.¹ Pityriasis rubra pilaris in adults is likely to persist for years, and spontaneous resolution is unpredictable. Randomized clinical trials are difficult to perform due to the rarity of PRP.

Although there is no cure and no standard protocol for treating PRP, systemic retinoids historically are considered first-line therapy for moderate to severe cases.² Additional management approaches include symptomatic control with moisturizers and psychological support. Alternative systemic treatments for moderate to severe cases include methotrexate, phototherapy, and cyclosporine.²

Pityriasis rubra pilaris demonstrates a favorable response to methotrexate treatment, especially in type I cases; however, patients on this alternative therapy should be monitored for severe adverse effects (eg, hepatotoxicity, pancytopenia, pneumonitis).² Phototherapy should be approached with caution. Narrowband UVB, UVA1, and psoralen plus UVA therapy have successfully treated PRP; however, the response is variable. In some cases, the opposite effect can occur, in which the condition is photoaggravated. Phototherapy is a valid alternative form of treatment when used in combination with acitretin, and a phototest should be performed prior to starting this regimen. Cyclosporine is another immunosuppressant that can be considered for PRP treatment, though there are limited data demonstrating its efficacy.²

The introduction of biologic agents has changed the treatment approach for many dermatologic diseases, including PRP. Given the similar features between psoriasis and PRP, the biologics prescribed for psoriasis therapy also are used for patients with PRP that is challenging to treat, such as anti–tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and IL inhibitors—specifically IL-17 and IL-23. Remission has been achieved with the use of biologics in combination with retinoid therapy.²

Biologic therapies used for PRP effectively inhibit cytokines and reduce the overall inflammatory processes involved in the development of the scaly patches and plaques seen in this condition. However, most reported clinical experiences are case studies, and more research in the form of randomized clinical trials is needed to understand the efficacy and long-term effects of this form of treatment in PRP. We present a case of a patient with refractory adult subtype I PRP that was successfully treated with the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab.

A 65-year-old man was referred to Florida Academic Dermatology Center (Coral Gables, Florida) with biopsy-proven PRP diagnosed 1 year prior. The patient reported experiencing a debilitating quality of life in the year since diagnosis (Figure 1). Treatment attempts with dupilumab, tralokinumab, intramuscular steroid injections, and topical corticosteroids had failed (Figure 2). Following evaluation at Florida Academic Dermatology Center, the patient was started on acitretin 25 mg every other day and received an initial subcutaneous injection of ixekizumab 160 mg (an IL-17 inhibitor) followed 2 weeks later by a second injection of 80 mg. After the 2 doses of ixekizumab, the patient’s condition worsened with the development of pinpoint hemorrhagic lesions. The medication was discontinued, and he was started on risankizumab 150 mg at the approved dosing regimen for plaque psoriasis in combination with the acitretin therapy. Prior to starting risankizumab, the affected body surface area (BSA) was 80%. At 1-month follow-up, he showed improvement with reduction in scaling and erythema and an affected BSA of 30% (Figure 3). At 4-month follow-up, he continued showing improvement with an affected BSA of 10% (Figure 4). Acitretin was discontinued, and the patient has been successfully maintained on risankizumab 150 mg/mL subcutaneous injections every 12 weeks since.

To the Editor:

Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is a rare papulosquamous condition with an unknown pathogenesis and limited efficacy data, which can make treatment challenging. Some cases of PRP spontaneously resolve in a few months, which is most common in the pediatric population.¹ Pityriasis rubra pilaris in adults is likely to persist for years, and spontaneous resolution is unpredictable. Randomized clinical trials are difficult to perform due to the rarity of PRP.

Although there is no cure and no standard protocol for treating PRP, systemic retinoids historically are considered first-line therapy for moderate to severe cases.² Additional management approaches include symptomatic control with moisturizers and psychological support. Alternative systemic treatments for moderate to severe cases include methotrexate, phototherapy, and cyclosporine.²

Pityriasis rubra pilaris demonstrates a favorable response to methotrexate treatment, especially in type I cases; however, patients on this alternative therapy should be monitored for severe adverse effects (eg, hepatotoxicity, pancytopenia, pneumonitis).² Phototherapy should be approached with caution. Narrowband UVB, UVA1, and psoralen plus UVA therapy have successfully treated PRP; however, the response is variable. In some cases, the opposite effect can occur, in which the condition is photoaggravated. Phototherapy is a valid alternative form of treatment when used in combination with acitretin, and a phototest should be performed prior to starting this regimen. Cyclosporine is another immunosuppressant that can be considered for PRP treatment, though there are limited data demonstrating its efficacy.²

The introduction of biologic agents has changed the treatment approach for many dermatologic diseases, including PRP. Given the similar features between psoriasis and PRP, the biologics prescribed for psoriasis therapy also are used for patients with PRP that is challenging to treat, such as anti–tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and IL inhibitors—specifically IL-17 and IL-23. Remission has been achieved with the use of biologics in combination with retinoid therapy.²

Biologic therapies used for PRP effectively inhibit cytokines and reduce the overall inflammatory processes involved in the development of the scaly patches and plaques seen in this condition. However, most reported clinical experiences are case studies, and more research in the form of randomized clinical trials is needed to understand the efficacy and long-term effects of this form of treatment in PRP. We present a case of a patient with refractory adult subtype I PRP that was successfully treated with the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab.

A 65-year-old man was referred to Florida Academic Dermatology Center (Coral Gables, Florida) with biopsy-proven PRP diagnosed 1 year prior. The patient reported experiencing a debilitating quality of life in the year since diagnosis (Figure 1). Treatment attempts with dupilumab, tralokinumab, intramuscular steroid injections, and topical corticosteroids had failed (Figure 2). Following evaluation at Florida Academic Dermatology Center, the patient was started on acitretin 25 mg every other day and received an initial subcutaneous injection of ixekizumab 160 mg (an IL-17 inhibitor) followed 2 weeks later by a second injection of 80 mg. After the 2 doses of ixekizumab, the patient’s condition worsened with the development of pinpoint hemorrhagic lesions. The medication was discontinued, and he was started on risankizumab 150 mg at the approved dosing regimen for plaque psoriasis in combination with the acitretin therapy. Prior to starting risankizumab, the affected body surface area (BSA) was 80%. At 1-month follow-up, he showed improvement with reduction in scaling and erythema and an affected BSA of 30% (Figure 3). At 4-month follow-up, he continued showing improvement with an affected BSA of 10% (Figure 4). Acitretin was discontinued, and the patient has been successfully maintained on risankizumab 150 mg/mL subcutaneous injections every 12 weeks since.

To the Editor:

Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is a rare papulosquamous condition with an unknown pathogenesis and limited efficacy data, which can make treatment challenging. Some cases of PRP spontaneously resolve in a few months, which is most common in the pediatric population.¹ Pityriasis rubra pilaris in adults is likely to persist for years, and spontaneous resolution is unpredictable. Randomized clinical trials are difficult to perform due to the rarity of PRP.

Although there is no cure and no standard protocol for treating PRP, systemic retinoids historically are considered first-line therapy for moderate to severe cases.² Additional management approaches include symptomatic control with moisturizers and psychological support. Alternative systemic treatments for moderate to severe cases include methotrexate, phototherapy, and cyclosporine.²

Pityriasis rubra pilaris demonstrates a favorable response to methotrexate treatment, especially in type I cases; however, patients on this alternative therapy should be monitored for severe adverse effects (eg, hepatotoxicity, pancytopenia, pneumonitis).² Phototherapy should be approached with caution. Narrowband UVB, UVA1, and psoralen plus UVA therapy have successfully treated PRP; however, the response is variable. In some cases, the opposite effect can occur, in which the condition is photoaggravated. Phototherapy is a valid alternative form of treatment when used in combination with acitretin, and a phototest should be performed prior to starting this regimen. Cyclosporine is another immunosuppressant that can be considered for PRP treatment, though there are limited data demonstrating its efficacy.²

The introduction of biologic agents has changed the treatment approach for many dermatologic diseases, including PRP. Given the similar features between psoriasis and PRP, the biologics prescribed for psoriasis therapy also are used for patients with PRP that is challenging to treat, such as anti–tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and IL inhibitors—specifically IL-17 and IL-23. Remission has been achieved with the use of biologics in combination with retinoid therapy.²

Biologic therapies used for PRP effectively inhibit cytokines and reduce the overall inflammatory processes involved in the development of the scaly patches and plaques seen in this condition. However, most reported clinical experiences are case studies, and more research in the form of randomized clinical trials is needed to understand the efficacy and long-term effects of this form of treatment in PRP. We present a case of a patient with refractory adult subtype I PRP that was successfully treated with the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab.

A 65-year-old man was referred to Florida Academic Dermatology Center (Coral Gables, Florida) with biopsy-proven PRP diagnosed 1 year prior. The patient reported experiencing a debilitating quality of life in the year since diagnosis (Figure 1). Treatment attempts with dupilumab, tralokinumab, intramuscular steroid injections, and topical corticosteroids had failed (Figure 2). Following evaluation at Florida Academic Dermatology Center, the patient was started on acitretin 25 mg every other day and received an initial subcutaneous injection of ixekizumab 160 mg (an IL-17 inhibitor) followed 2 weeks later by a second injection of 80 mg. After the 2 doses of ixekizumab, the patient’s condition worsened with the development of pinpoint hemorrhagic lesions. The medication was discontinued, and he was started on risankizumab 150 mg at the approved dosing regimen for plaque psoriasis in combination with the acitretin therapy. Prior to starting risankizumab, the affected body surface area (BSA) was 80%. At 1-month follow-up, he showed improvement with reduction in scaling and erythema and an affected BSA of 30% (Figure 3). At 4-month follow-up, he continued showing improvement with an affected BSA of 10% (Figure 4). Acitretin was discontinued, and the patient has been successfully maintained on risankizumab 150 mg/mL subcutaneous injections every 12 weeks since.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in the residency match, with successful applicants demonstrating a well-rounded application reflecting not only their academic excellence but also their dedication to research, community service, and hands-on clinical experience.¹ A growing emphasis on scholarly activities has made it crucial for applicants to stand out, with an increasing number opting to take gap years to engage in focused research endeavors.² In highly competitive specialties such as dermatology, successful applicants now report more than 20 research items on average.^3,4 This trend also is evident in primary care specialties, which have seen a 2- to 3-fold increase in reported research activities. The average unmatched applicant today lists more research items than the average matched applicant did a decade ago, underscoring the growing emphasis on scholarly activity.³

Ideally, graduate medical education should foster an environment of inquiry and scholarship, where residents develop new knowledge, evaluate research findings, and cultivate lifelong habits of inquiry. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to engage in scholarship, such as case reports, research reviews, and original research.⁵ Research during residency has been linked to several benefits, including enhanced patient care through improved critical appraisal skills, clinical reasoning, and lifelong learning.^6,7 Additionally, students and residents who publish research are more likely to achieve higher rank during residency and pursue careers in academic medicine, potentially helping to address the decline in clinician investigators.^8,9 Publishing and presenting research also can enhance a residency program’s reputation, making it more attractive to competitive applicants, and may be beneficial for residents seeking jobs or fellowships.⁶

Dermatology residency programs vary in their structure and support for resident research. One survey revealed that many programs lack the necessary support, structure, and resources to effectively promote and maintain research training.¹ Additionally, residents have less exposure to researchers who could serve as mentors due to the growing demands placed on attending physicians in teaching hospitals.¹⁰

The Research Arms Race

The growing emphasis on scholarly activity for residency and fellowship applicants coupled with the use of research productivity to differentiate candidates has led some to declare a “research arms race” in residency selection.³ As one author stated, “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons.”¹¹ Indeed, most articles authored by medical students are short reviews or case reports, with the majority (59% [207/350]) being cited zero times, according to one analysis.¹² Given the variable research infrastructure between programs and the decreasing availability of research mentors despite the growing emphasis on scholarly activity, applicants face an unfortunate dilemma. Until the system changes, those who protest this research arms race by not engaging in substantial scholarly activity are less likely to match into competitive specialties. Thus, the race continues.

The Value of Mentorship

Resident research success is impacted by having an effective faculty research mentor.¹³ Although all medical research at the student or resident levels should be conducted with a faculty mentor to oversee it, finding a mentor can be challenging. If a resident’s program boasts a strong research infrastructure or prolific faculty, building relationships with potential mentors is a logical first step for residents wishing to engage in research; however, if suitable mentors are lacking, efforts should be made by residents to establish these connections elsewhere, such as attending society meetings to network with potential mentors and applying to formal mentorship programs (eg, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery’s Preceptor Program, the Women’s Dermatologic Society’s Mentorship Award). Unsolicited email inquiries asking, “Hi Dr. X, my name is Y, and I was wondering if you have any research projects I could help with?” often go unanswered. Instead, consider emailing or approaching potential mentors with a more developed proposition, such as the following example:

Hello Dr. X, my name is Y. I have enjoyed reading your publications on A, which inspired me to think about B. I reviewed the literature and noticed a potential to enhance our current understanding on the topic. My team and I conducted a systematic review of the available literature and drafted a manuscript summarizing our findings. Given your expertise in this field, would you be willing to collaborate on this paper? We would be grateful for your critical eye, suggestions for improvement, and overall thoughts.

This approach demonstrates initiative, provides a clear plan, and shows respect for the mentor’s expertise, increasing the likelihood of a positive response and fruitful collaboration. Assuming the resident’s working draft meets the potential mentor’s basic expectations, such a display of initiative is likely to impress them, and they may then offer opportunities to engage in meaningful research projects in the future. Everyone benefits! These efforts to establish connections with mentors can pave the way to further collaboration and meaningful research opportunities for dermatology residents.

The Systematic Review: An Attractive Option For Residents

There are several potential avenues for students or residents interested in pursuing research. Case reports and case series are relatively easy to compile, can be completed quickly, and often require minimal guidance from a faculty mentor; however, case reports rank low in the research hierarchy. Conversely, prospective blinded clinical trials provide some of the highest-quality evidence available but are challenging to conduct without a practicing faculty member to provide a patient cohort, often require extensive funding, and may involve complex statistical analyses beyond the expertise of most students or residents. Additionally, they may take years to complete, often extending beyond residency or fellowship application deadlines.

Most medical applicants likely hold at least some hesitation in churning out vast amounts of low-quality research merely to boost their publication count for the match process. Ideally, those who pursue scholarly activity should be driven by a genuine desire to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. One particularly valuable avenue for trainees wishing to engage in research is the systematic review, which aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies regarding a research topic and answer a focused question. If performed thoughtfully, a systematic review can meaningfully contribute to the medical literature without requiring access to a prospectively followed cohort of patients or the constant supervision of a faculty mentor. Sure, systematic reviews may not be as robust as prospective cohort clinical trials, but they often provide comprehensive insights and are considered valuable contributions to evidence-based medicine. With the help of co-residents or medical students, a medical reference librarian, and a statistician—along with a working understanding of universally accepted quality measures—a resident physician and their team can produce a systematic review that ultimately may merit publication in a top-tier medical journal.

The remainder of this column will outline a streamlined approach to the systematic review writing process, specifically tailored for medical residents who may not have affiliations to a prolific research department or established relationships with faculty mentors in their field of interest. The aim is to offer a basic framework to help residents navigate the complexities of conducting and writing a high-quality, impactful systematic review. It is important to emphasize that resident research should always be conducted under the guidance of a faculty mentor, and this approach is not intended to encourage independent research and publication by residents. Instead, it provides steps that can be undertaken with a foundational understanding of accepted principles, allowing residents to compile a working draft of a manuscript in collaboration with a trusted faculty mentor.

The Systematic Review: A Simple Approach

Step 1: Choose a Topic—Once a resident has decided to embark on conducting a systematic review, the first step is to choose a topic, which requires consideration of several factors to ensure relevance, feasibility, and impact. Begin by identifying areas of clinical uncertainty or controversy in which a comprehensive synthesis of the literature could provide valuable insights. Often, such a topic can be gleaned from the conclusion section of other primary studies; statements such as “further study is needed to determine the efficacy of X” or “systematic reviews would be beneficial to ascertaining the impact of Y” may be a great place to start.

Next, ensure that sufficient primary studies exist to support a robust review or meta-analysis by conducting a preliminary literature search, which will confirm that the chosen topic is both researchable and relevant. A narrow, focused, well-defined topic likely will prove more feasible to review than a broad, ill-defined one. Once a topic is selected, it is advisable to discuss it with a faculty mentor before starting the literature search to ensure the topic’s feasibility and clinical relevance, helping to guide your research in a meaningful direction.

When deciding between a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the nature of the research question is an influential factor. A systematic review is particularly suitable for addressing broad questions or topics when the aim is to summarize and synthesize all relevant research studies; for example, a systematic review may investigate the various treatment options for atopic dermatitis and their efficacy, which allows for a comprehensive overview of the available treatments—both the interventions and the outcomes. In contrast, a meta-analysis is ideal for collecting and statistically combining quantitative data from multiple primary studies, provided there are enough relevant studies available in the literature.

Step 2: Build a Team—Recruiting a skilled librarian to assist with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and retrieving relevant papers is crucial for conducting a high-quality systematic review or meta-analysis. Medical librarians specializing in health sciences enhance the efficiency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of your literature search, substantially boosting your work’s credibility. These librarians are well versed in medical databases such as PubMed and Embase. Begin by contacting your institution’s library services, as there often are valuable resources and personnel available to assist you. Personally, I was surprised to find a librarian at my institution specifically dedicated to helping medical residents with such projects! These professionals are eager to help, and if provided with the scope and goal of your project, they can deliver literature search results in a digestible format. Similarly, seeking the expertise of a medical statistician is crucial to the accuracy and legitimacy of your study. In your final paper, it is important to recognize the contributions of the librarian and statistician, either as co-authors or in the acknowledgments section.

In addition, recruiting colleagues or medical students can be an effective strategy to make the project more feasible and offer collaborative benefits for all parties involved. Given the growing emphasis on research for residency and fellowship admissions, there usually is no shortage of motivated volunteers.

Next, identify the software tool you will use for your systematic review. Options range from simple spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel to reference managers such as EndNote or Mendeley or dedicated systematic review tools. Academic institutions may subscribe to paid services such as Covidence (https://www.covidence.org), or you can utilize free alternatives such as Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai). Investing time in learning to navigate dedicated systematic review software can greatly enhance efficiency and reduce frustrations compared to more basic methods. Ultimately, staying organized, thorough, and committed is key.

Step 3: Conduct the Literature Review—At this point, your research topic has been decided, a medical reference librarian has provided the results of a comprehensive literature search, and a software tool has been chosen. The next task is to read hundreds or thousands of papers—easy, right? With your dedicated team assembled, the workload can be divided and conquered. The first step involves screening out duplicate and irrelevant studies based on titles and abstracts. Next, review the remaining papers in more detail. Those that pass this preliminary screen should be read in their entirety, and only the papers relevant to the research topic should be included in the final synthesis. If there are uncertainties about a study’s relevance, consulting a faculty mentor is advisable. To ensure the systematic review is as thorough as possible, pay special attention to the references section of each paper, as cited references can reveal relevant studies that may have been missed in the literature search.

Once all relevant papers are compiled and read, the relevant data points should be extracted and imputed into a data sheet. Collaborating with a medical statistician is crucial at this stage, as they can provide guidance on the most effective ways to structure and input data. After all studies are included, the relevant statistical analyses on the resultant dataset can be run.

Step 4: Write the Paper—In 2020, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews. A full discussion of PRISMA guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper; Page et al¹⁴ provided a summary, checklist, and flow diagram that is available online (https://www.prisma-statement.org). Following the PRISMA checklist and guidelines ensures a high-quality, transparent, and reliable systematic review. These guidelines not only help streamline and simplify the writing process but also enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. Discovering the PRISMA checklist can be transformative, providing a valuable roadmap that guides the author through each step of the reporting process, helping to avoid common pitfalls. This structured approach ultimately leads to a more comprehensive and trustworthy review.

Step 5: Make Finishing Touches—At this stage in the systematic review process, the studies have been compiled and thoroughly analyzed and the statistical analysis has been conducted. The results have been organized within a structured framework following the PRISMA checklist. With these steps completed, the next task is to finalize the manuscript and seek a final review from the senior author or faculty mentor. To streamline this process, it is beneficial to adhere to the formatting guidelines of the specific medical journal you intend to submit to. Check the author guidelines on the journal’s website and review recent systematic reviews published there as a reference. Even if you have not chosen a journal yet, formatting your manuscript according to a prestigious journal’s general style provides a strong foundation that can be easily adapted to fit another journal’s requirements if necessary.

Final Thoughts

Designing and conducting a systematic review is no easy task, but it can be a valuable skill for dermatology residents aiming to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. The process of compiling a systematic review offers an opportunity for developing critical research skills, from formulating a research question to synthesizing evidence and presenting findings in a clear methodical way. Engaging in systematic review writing not only enhances the resident’s understanding of a particular topic but also demonstrates a commitment to scholarly activity—a key factor in an increasingly competitive residency and fellowship application environment.

The basic steps outlined in this article are just one way in which residents can begin to navigate the complexities of medical research, specifically the systematic review process. By assembling a supportive team, utilizing available resources, and adhering to established guidelines such as PRISMA, one can produce a high-quality, impactful review. Ultimately, the systematic review process is not just about publication—it is about fostering a habit of inquiry, improving patient care, and contributing to the ever-evolving field of medicine. With dedication and collaboration, even the most challenging aspects of research can be tackled, paving the way for future opportunities and professional growth. In this way, perhaps one day the spirit of the “research race” can shift from a frantic sprint to a graceful marathon, where each mile is run with heart and every step is filled with purpose.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in the residency match, with successful applicants demonstrating a well-rounded application reflecting not only their academic excellence but also their dedication to research, community service, and hands-on clinical experience.¹ A growing emphasis on scholarly activities has made it crucial for applicants to stand out, with an increasing number opting to take gap years to engage in focused research endeavors.² In highly competitive specialties such as dermatology, successful applicants now report more than 20 research items on average.^3,4 This trend also is evident in primary care specialties, which have seen a 2- to 3-fold increase in reported research activities. The average unmatched applicant today lists more research items than the average matched applicant did a decade ago, underscoring the growing emphasis on scholarly activity.³

Ideally, graduate medical education should foster an environment of inquiry and scholarship, where residents develop new knowledge, evaluate research findings, and cultivate lifelong habits of inquiry. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to engage in scholarship, such as case reports, research reviews, and original research.⁵ Research during residency has been linked to several benefits, including enhanced patient care through improved critical appraisal skills, clinical reasoning, and lifelong learning.^6,7 Additionally, students and residents who publish research are more likely to achieve higher rank during residency and pursue careers in academic medicine, potentially helping to address the decline in clinician investigators.^8,9 Publishing and presenting research also can enhance a residency program’s reputation, making it more attractive to competitive applicants, and may be beneficial for residents seeking jobs or fellowships.⁶

Dermatology residency programs vary in their structure and support for resident research. One survey revealed that many programs lack the necessary support, structure, and resources to effectively promote and maintain research training.¹ Additionally, residents have less exposure to researchers who could serve as mentors due to the growing demands placed on attending physicians in teaching hospitals.¹⁰

The Research Arms Race

The growing emphasis on scholarly activity for residency and fellowship applicants coupled with the use of research productivity to differentiate candidates has led some to declare a “research arms race” in residency selection.³ As one author stated, “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons.”¹¹ Indeed, most articles authored by medical students are short reviews or case reports, with the majority (59% [207/350]) being cited zero times, according to one analysis.¹² Given the variable research infrastructure between programs and the decreasing availability of research mentors despite the growing emphasis on scholarly activity, applicants face an unfortunate dilemma. Until the system changes, those who protest this research arms race by not engaging in substantial scholarly activity are less likely to match into competitive specialties. Thus, the race continues.

The Value of Mentorship

Resident research success is impacted by having an effective faculty research mentor.¹³ Although all medical research at the student or resident levels should be conducted with a faculty mentor to oversee it, finding a mentor can be challenging. If a resident’s program boasts a strong research infrastructure or prolific faculty, building relationships with potential mentors is a logical first step for residents wishing to engage in research; however, if suitable mentors are lacking, efforts should be made by residents to establish these connections elsewhere, such as attending society meetings to network with potential mentors and applying to formal mentorship programs (eg, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery’s Preceptor Program, the Women’s Dermatologic Society’s Mentorship Award). Unsolicited email inquiries asking, “Hi Dr. X, my name is Y, and I was wondering if you have any research projects I could help with?” often go unanswered. Instead, consider emailing or approaching potential mentors with a more developed proposition, such as the following example:

Hello Dr. X, my name is Y. I have enjoyed reading your publications on A, which inspired me to think about B. I reviewed the literature and noticed a potential to enhance our current understanding on the topic. My team and I conducted a systematic review of the available literature and drafted a manuscript summarizing our findings. Given your expertise in this field, would you be willing to collaborate on this paper? We would be grateful for your critical eye, suggestions for improvement, and overall thoughts.

This approach demonstrates initiative, provides a clear plan, and shows respect for the mentor’s expertise, increasing the likelihood of a positive response and fruitful collaboration. Assuming the resident’s working draft meets the potential mentor’s basic expectations, such a display of initiative is likely to impress them, and they may then offer opportunities to engage in meaningful research projects in the future. Everyone benefits! These efforts to establish connections with mentors can pave the way to further collaboration and meaningful research opportunities for dermatology residents.

The Systematic Review: An Attractive Option For Residents

There are several potential avenues for students or residents interested in pursuing research. Case reports and case series are relatively easy to compile, can be completed quickly, and often require minimal guidance from a faculty mentor; however, case reports rank low in the research hierarchy. Conversely, prospective blinded clinical trials provide some of the highest-quality evidence available but are challenging to conduct without a practicing faculty member to provide a patient cohort, often require extensive funding, and may involve complex statistical analyses beyond the expertise of most students or residents. Additionally, they may take years to complete, often extending beyond residency or fellowship application deadlines.

Most medical applicants likely hold at least some hesitation in churning out vast amounts of low-quality research merely to boost their publication count for the match process. Ideally, those who pursue scholarly activity should be driven by a genuine desire to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. One particularly valuable avenue for trainees wishing to engage in research is the systematic review, which aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies regarding a research topic and answer a focused question. If performed thoughtfully, a systematic review can meaningfully contribute to the medical literature without requiring access to a prospectively followed cohort of patients or the constant supervision of a faculty mentor. Sure, systematic reviews may not be as robust as prospective cohort clinical trials, but they often provide comprehensive insights and are considered valuable contributions to evidence-based medicine. With the help of co-residents or medical students, a medical reference librarian, and a statistician—along with a working understanding of universally accepted quality measures—a resident physician and their team can produce a systematic review that ultimately may merit publication in a top-tier medical journal.

The remainder of this column will outline a streamlined approach to the systematic review writing process, specifically tailored for medical residents who may not have affiliations to a prolific research department or established relationships with faculty mentors in their field of interest. The aim is to offer a basic framework to help residents navigate the complexities of conducting and writing a high-quality, impactful systematic review. It is important to emphasize that resident research should always be conducted under the guidance of a faculty mentor, and this approach is not intended to encourage independent research and publication by residents. Instead, it provides steps that can be undertaken with a foundational understanding of accepted principles, allowing residents to compile a working draft of a manuscript in collaboration with a trusted faculty mentor.

The Systematic Review: A Simple Approach

Step 1: Choose a Topic—Once a resident has decided to embark on conducting a systematic review, the first step is to choose a topic, which requires consideration of several factors to ensure relevance, feasibility, and impact. Begin by identifying areas of clinical uncertainty or controversy in which a comprehensive synthesis of the literature could provide valuable insights. Often, such a topic can be gleaned from the conclusion section of other primary studies; statements such as “further study is needed to determine the efficacy of X” or “systematic reviews would be beneficial to ascertaining the impact of Y” may be a great place to start.

Next, ensure that sufficient primary studies exist to support a robust review or meta-analysis by conducting a preliminary literature search, which will confirm that the chosen topic is both researchable and relevant. A narrow, focused, well-defined topic likely will prove more feasible to review than a broad, ill-defined one. Once a topic is selected, it is advisable to discuss it with a faculty mentor before starting the literature search to ensure the topic’s feasibility and clinical relevance, helping to guide your research in a meaningful direction.

When deciding between a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the nature of the research question is an influential factor. A systematic review is particularly suitable for addressing broad questions or topics when the aim is to summarize and synthesize all relevant research studies; for example, a systematic review may investigate the various treatment options for atopic dermatitis and their efficacy, which allows for a comprehensive overview of the available treatments—both the interventions and the outcomes. In contrast, a meta-analysis is ideal for collecting and statistically combining quantitative data from multiple primary studies, provided there are enough relevant studies available in the literature.

Step 2: Build a Team—Recruiting a skilled librarian to assist with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and retrieving relevant papers is crucial for conducting a high-quality systematic review or meta-analysis. Medical librarians specializing in health sciences enhance the efficiency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of your literature search, substantially boosting your work’s credibility. These librarians are well versed in medical databases such as PubMed and Embase. Begin by contacting your institution’s library services, as there often are valuable resources and personnel available to assist you. Personally, I was surprised to find a librarian at my institution specifically dedicated to helping medical residents with such projects! These professionals are eager to help, and if provided with the scope and goal of your project, they can deliver literature search results in a digestible format. Similarly, seeking the expertise of a medical statistician is crucial to the accuracy and legitimacy of your study. In your final paper, it is important to recognize the contributions of the librarian and statistician, either as co-authors or in the acknowledgments section.

In addition, recruiting colleagues or medical students can be an effective strategy to make the project more feasible and offer collaborative benefits for all parties involved. Given the growing emphasis on research for residency and fellowship admissions, there usually is no shortage of motivated volunteers.

Next, identify the software tool you will use for your systematic review. Options range from simple spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel to reference managers such as EndNote or Mendeley or dedicated systematic review tools. Academic institutions may subscribe to paid services such as Covidence (https://www.covidence.org), or you can utilize free alternatives such as Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai). Investing time in learning to navigate dedicated systematic review software can greatly enhance efficiency and reduce frustrations compared to more basic methods. Ultimately, staying organized, thorough, and committed is key.

Step 3: Conduct the Literature Review—At this point, your research topic has been decided, a medical reference librarian has provided the results of a comprehensive literature search, and a software tool has been chosen. The next task is to read hundreds or thousands of papers—easy, right? With your dedicated team assembled, the workload can be divided and conquered. The first step involves screening out duplicate and irrelevant studies based on titles and abstracts. Next, review the remaining papers in more detail. Those that pass this preliminary screen should be read in their entirety, and only the papers relevant to the research topic should be included in the final synthesis. If there are uncertainties about a study’s relevance, consulting a faculty mentor is advisable. To ensure the systematic review is as thorough as possible, pay special attention to the references section of each paper, as cited references can reveal relevant studies that may have been missed in the literature search.

Once all relevant papers are compiled and read, the relevant data points should be extracted and imputed into a data sheet. Collaborating with a medical statistician is crucial at this stage, as they can provide guidance on the most effective ways to structure and input data. After all studies are included, the relevant statistical analyses on the resultant dataset can be run.

Step 4: Write the Paper—In 2020, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews. A full discussion of PRISMA guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper; Page et al¹⁴ provided a summary, checklist, and flow diagram that is available online (https://www.prisma-statement.org). Following the PRISMA checklist and guidelines ensures a high-quality, transparent, and reliable systematic review. These guidelines not only help streamline and simplify the writing process but also enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. Discovering the PRISMA checklist can be transformative, providing a valuable roadmap that guides the author through each step of the reporting process, helping to avoid common pitfalls. This structured approach ultimately leads to a more comprehensive and trustworthy review.

Step 5: Make Finishing Touches—At this stage in the systematic review process, the studies have been compiled and thoroughly analyzed and the statistical analysis has been conducted. The results have been organized within a structured framework following the PRISMA checklist. With these steps completed, the next task is to finalize the manuscript and seek a final review from the senior author or faculty mentor. To streamline this process, it is beneficial to adhere to the formatting guidelines of the specific medical journal you intend to submit to. Check the author guidelines on the journal’s website and review recent systematic reviews published there as a reference. Even if you have not chosen a journal yet, formatting your manuscript according to a prestigious journal’s general style provides a strong foundation that can be easily adapted to fit another journal’s requirements if necessary.

Final Thoughts

Designing and conducting a systematic review is no easy task, but it can be a valuable skill for dermatology residents aiming to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. The process of compiling a systematic review offers an opportunity for developing critical research skills, from formulating a research question to synthesizing evidence and presenting findings in a clear methodical way. Engaging in systematic review writing not only enhances the resident’s understanding of a particular topic but also demonstrates a commitment to scholarly activity—a key factor in an increasingly competitive residency and fellowship application environment.

The basic steps outlined in this article are just one way in which residents can begin to navigate the complexities of medical research, specifically the systematic review process. By assembling a supportive team, utilizing available resources, and adhering to established guidelines such as PRISMA, one can produce a high-quality, impactful review. Ultimately, the systematic review process is not just about publication—it is about fostering a habit of inquiry, improving patient care, and contributing to the ever-evolving field of medicine. With dedication and collaboration, even the most challenging aspects of research can be tackled, paving the way for future opportunities and professional growth. In this way, perhaps one day the spirit of the “research race” can shift from a frantic sprint to a graceful marathon, where each mile is run with heart and every step is filled with purpose.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in the residency match, with successful applicants demonstrating a well-rounded application reflecting not only their academic excellence but also their dedication to research, community service, and hands-on clinical experience.¹ A growing emphasis on scholarly activities has made it crucial for applicants to stand out, with an increasing number opting to take gap years to engage in focused research endeavors.² In highly competitive specialties such as dermatology, successful applicants now report more than 20 research items on average.^3,4 This trend also is evident in primary care specialties, which have seen a 2- to 3-fold increase in reported research activities. The average unmatched applicant today lists more research items than the average matched applicant did a decade ago, underscoring the growing emphasis on scholarly activity.³

Ideally, graduate medical education should foster an environment of inquiry and scholarship, where residents develop new knowledge, evaluate research findings, and cultivate lifelong habits of inquiry. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to engage in scholarship, such as case reports, research reviews, and original research.⁵ Research during residency has been linked to several benefits, including enhanced patient care through improved critical appraisal skills, clinical reasoning, and lifelong learning.^6,7 Additionally, students and residents who publish research are more likely to achieve higher rank during residency and pursue careers in academic medicine, potentially helping to address the decline in clinician investigators.^8,9 Publishing and presenting research also can enhance a residency program’s reputation, making it more attractive to competitive applicants, and may be beneficial for residents seeking jobs or fellowships.⁶

Dermatology residency programs vary in their structure and support for resident research. One survey revealed that many programs lack the necessary support, structure, and resources to effectively promote and maintain research training.¹ Additionally, residents have less exposure to researchers who could serve as mentors due to the growing demands placed on attending physicians in teaching hospitals.¹⁰

The Research Arms Race

The growing emphasis on scholarly activity for residency and fellowship applicants coupled with the use of research productivity to differentiate candidates has led some to declare a “research arms race” in residency selection.³ As one author stated, “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons.”¹¹ Indeed, most articles authored by medical students are short reviews or case reports, with the majority (59% [207/350]) being cited zero times, according to one analysis.¹² Given the variable research infrastructure between programs and the decreasing availability of research mentors despite the growing emphasis on scholarly activity, applicants face an unfortunate dilemma. Until the system changes, those who protest this research arms race by not engaging in substantial scholarly activity are less likely to match into competitive specialties. Thus, the race continues.

The Value of Mentorship

Resident research success is impacted by having an effective faculty research mentor.¹³ Although all medical research at the student or resident levels should be conducted with a faculty mentor to oversee it, finding a mentor can be challenging. If a resident’s program boasts a strong research infrastructure or prolific faculty, building relationships with potential mentors is a logical first step for residents wishing to engage in research; however, if suitable mentors are lacking, efforts should be made by residents to establish these connections elsewhere, such as attending society meetings to network with potential mentors and applying to formal mentorship programs (eg, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery’s Preceptor Program, the Women’s Dermatologic Society’s Mentorship Award). Unsolicited email inquiries asking, “Hi Dr. X, my name is Y, and I was wondering if you have any research projects I could help with?” often go unanswered. Instead, consider emailing or approaching potential mentors with a more developed proposition, such as the following example:

Hello Dr. X, my name is Y. I have enjoyed reading your publications on A, which inspired me to think about B. I reviewed the literature and noticed a potential to enhance our current understanding on the topic. My team and I conducted a systematic review of the available literature and drafted a manuscript summarizing our findings. Given your expertise in this field, would you be willing to collaborate on this paper? We would be grateful for your critical eye, suggestions for improvement, and overall thoughts.

This approach demonstrates initiative, provides a clear plan, and shows respect for the mentor’s expertise, increasing the likelihood of a positive response and fruitful collaboration. Assuming the resident’s working draft meets the potential mentor’s basic expectations, such a display of initiative is likely to impress them, and they may then offer opportunities to engage in meaningful research projects in the future. Everyone benefits! These efforts to establish connections with mentors can pave the way to further collaboration and meaningful research opportunities for dermatology residents.

The Systematic Review: An Attractive Option For Residents

There are several potential avenues for students or residents interested in pursuing research. Case reports and case series are relatively easy to compile, can be completed quickly, and often require minimal guidance from a faculty mentor; however, case reports rank low in the research hierarchy. Conversely, prospective blinded clinical trials provide some of the highest-quality evidence available but are challenging to conduct without a practicing faculty member to provide a patient cohort, often require extensive funding, and may involve complex statistical analyses beyond the expertise of most students or residents. Additionally, they may take years to complete, often extending beyond residency or fellowship application deadlines.

Most medical applicants likely hold at least some hesitation in churning out vast amounts of low-quality research merely to boost their publication count for the match process. Ideally, those who pursue scholarly activity should be driven by a genuine desire to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. One particularly valuable avenue for trainees wishing to engage in research is the systematic review, which aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies regarding a research topic and answer a focused question. If performed thoughtfully, a systematic review can meaningfully contribute to the medical literature without requiring access to a prospectively followed cohort of patients or the constant supervision of a faculty mentor. Sure, systematic reviews may not be as robust as prospective cohort clinical trials, but they often provide comprehensive insights and are considered valuable contributions to evidence-based medicine. With the help of co-residents or medical students, a medical reference librarian, and a statistician—along with a working understanding of universally accepted quality measures—a resident physician and their team can produce a systematic review that ultimately may merit publication in a top-tier medical journal.

The remainder of this column will outline a streamlined approach to the systematic review writing process, specifically tailored for medical residents who may not have affiliations to a prolific research department or established relationships with faculty mentors in their field of interest. The aim is to offer a basic framework to help residents navigate the complexities of conducting and writing a high-quality, impactful systematic review. It is important to emphasize that resident research should always be conducted under the guidance of a faculty mentor, and this approach is not intended to encourage independent research and publication by residents. Instead, it provides steps that can be undertaken with a foundational understanding of accepted principles, allowing residents to compile a working draft of a manuscript in collaboration with a trusted faculty mentor.

The Systematic Review: A Simple Approach

Step 1: Choose a Topic—Once a resident has decided to embark on conducting a systematic review, the first step is to choose a topic, which requires consideration of several factors to ensure relevance, feasibility, and impact. Begin by identifying areas of clinical uncertainty or controversy in which a comprehensive synthesis of the literature could provide valuable insights. Often, such a topic can be gleaned from the conclusion section of other primary studies; statements such as “further study is needed to determine the efficacy of X” or “systematic reviews would be beneficial to ascertaining the impact of Y” may be a great place to start.

Next, ensure that sufficient primary studies exist to support a robust review or meta-analysis by conducting a preliminary literature search, which will confirm that the chosen topic is both researchable and relevant. A narrow, focused, well-defined topic likely will prove more feasible to review than a broad, ill-defined one. Once a topic is selected, it is advisable to discuss it with a faculty mentor before starting the literature search to ensure the topic’s feasibility and clinical relevance, helping to guide your research in a meaningful direction.

When deciding between a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the nature of the research question is an influential factor. A systematic review is particularly suitable for addressing broad questions or topics when the aim is to summarize and synthesize all relevant research studies; for example, a systematic review may investigate the various treatment options for atopic dermatitis and their efficacy, which allows for a comprehensive overview of the available treatments—both the interventions and the outcomes. In contrast, a meta-analysis is ideal for collecting and statistically combining quantitative data from multiple primary studies, provided there are enough relevant studies available in the literature.

Step 2: Build a Team—Recruiting a skilled librarian to assist with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and retrieving relevant papers is crucial for conducting a high-quality systematic review or meta-analysis. Medical librarians specializing in health sciences enhance the efficiency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of your literature search, substantially boosting your work’s credibility. These librarians are well versed in medical databases such as PubMed and Embase. Begin by contacting your institution’s library services, as there often are valuable resources and personnel available to assist you. Personally, I was surprised to find a librarian at my institution specifically dedicated to helping medical residents with such projects! These professionals are eager to help, and if provided with the scope and goal of your project, they can deliver literature search results in a digestible format. Similarly, seeking the expertise of a medical statistician is crucial to the accuracy and legitimacy of your study. In your final paper, it is important to recognize the contributions of the librarian and statistician, either as co-authors or in the acknowledgments section.

In addition, recruiting colleagues or medical students can be an effective strategy to make the project more feasible and offer collaborative benefits for all parties involved. Given the growing emphasis on research for residency and fellowship admissions, there usually is no shortage of motivated volunteers.

Next, identify the software tool you will use for your systematic review. Options range from simple spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel to reference managers such as EndNote or Mendeley or dedicated systematic review tools. Academic institutions may subscribe to paid services such as Covidence (https://www.covidence.org), or you can utilize free alternatives such as Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai). Investing time in learning to navigate dedicated systematic review software can greatly enhance efficiency and reduce frustrations compared to more basic methods. Ultimately, staying organized, thorough, and committed is key.

Step 3: Conduct the Literature Review—At this point, your research topic has been decided, a medical reference librarian has provided the results of a comprehensive literature search, and a software tool has been chosen. The next task is to read hundreds or thousands of papers—easy, right? With your dedicated team assembled, the workload can be divided and conquered. The first step involves screening out duplicate and irrelevant studies based on titles and abstracts. Next, review the remaining papers in more detail. Those that pass this preliminary screen should be read in their entirety, and only the papers relevant to the research topic should be included in the final synthesis. If there are uncertainties about a study’s relevance, consulting a faculty mentor is advisable. To ensure the systematic review is as thorough as possible, pay special attention to the references section of each paper, as cited references can reveal relevant studies that may have been missed in the literature search.

Once all relevant papers are compiled and read, the relevant data points should be extracted and imputed into a data sheet. Collaborating with a medical statistician is crucial at this stage, as they can provide guidance on the most effective ways to structure and input data. After all studies are included, the relevant statistical analyses on the resultant dataset can be run.

Step 4: Write the Paper—In 2020, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews. A full discussion of PRISMA guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper; Page et al¹⁴ provided a summary, checklist, and flow diagram that is available online (https://www.prisma-statement.org). Following the PRISMA checklist and guidelines ensures a high-quality, transparent, and reliable systematic review. These guidelines not only help streamline and simplify the writing process but also enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. Discovering the PRISMA checklist can be transformative, providing a valuable roadmap that guides the author through each step of the reporting process, helping to avoid common pitfalls. This structured approach ultimately leads to a more comprehensive and trustworthy review.

Step 5: Make Finishing Touches—At this stage in the systematic review process, the studies have been compiled and thoroughly analyzed and the statistical analysis has been conducted. The results have been organized within a structured framework following the PRISMA checklist. With these steps completed, the next task is to finalize the manuscript and seek a final review from the senior author or faculty mentor. To streamline this process, it is beneficial to adhere to the formatting guidelines of the specific medical journal you intend to submit to. Check the author guidelines on the journal’s website and review recent systematic reviews published there as a reference. Even if you have not chosen a journal yet, formatting your manuscript according to a prestigious journal’s general style provides a strong foundation that can be easily adapted to fit another journal’s requirements if necessary.

Final Thoughts

Designing and conducting a systematic review is no easy task, but it can be a valuable skill for dermatology residents aiming to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. The process of compiling a systematic review offers an opportunity for developing critical research skills, from formulating a research question to synthesizing evidence and presenting findings in a clear methodical way. Engaging in systematic review writing not only enhances the resident’s understanding of a particular topic but also demonstrates a commitment to scholarly activity—a key factor in an increasingly competitive residency and fellowship application environment.

The basic steps outlined in this article are just one way in which residents can begin to navigate the complexities of medical research, specifically the systematic review process. By assembling a supportive team, utilizing available resources, and adhering to established guidelines such as PRISMA, one can produce a high-quality, impactful review. Ultimately, the systematic review process is not just about publication—it is about fostering a habit of inquiry, improving patient care, and contributing to the ever-evolving field of medicine. With dedication and collaboration, even the most challenging aspects of research can be tackled, paving the way for future opportunities and professional growth. In this way, perhaps one day the spirit of the “research race” can shift from a frantic sprint to a graceful marathon, where each mile is run with heart and every step is filled with purpose.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.