MDedge Dermatology

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

In November, the office manager of a San Antonio dermatology practice was sentenced to 46 months in prison for defrauding the practice of nearly $350,000 from patient billings and employee profit sharing accounts.

Per the indictment, the practice conducted a nonprofit educational symposium in 2012. A bank account was established to collect contributions for that event, which was supposed to be closed at its conclusion; but the office manager kept it open, and deposited practice receipts into it. She then used the account as her slush fund for travel, property payments, meal purchases, and other personal expenses on credit cards she fraudulently opened in the practice’s name. This continued for several years.

Because this case has received national attention, I am republishing my column on embezzlement, which includes recommendations that could prevent such unfortunate situations from occurring.

Few crimes are more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; but their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: the person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.

Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.

Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Over a year ago, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.

Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.”

Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.

Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.

Ask about computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and should have safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.

Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information websites. (See my previous columns on hiring at http://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/managing-your-practice.)

Look for “red flags.” Examples are employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work; or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.

Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and you will be assured of some measure of recovery should your safeguards fail. In addition, the mere knowledge that your staff is bonded will frighten off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

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

In November, the office manager of a San Antonio dermatology practice was sentenced to 46 months in prison for defrauding the practice of nearly $350,000 from patient billings and employee profit sharing accounts.

Per the indictment, the practice conducted a nonprofit educational symposium in 2012. A bank account was established to collect contributions for that event, which was supposed to be closed at its conclusion; but the office manager kept it open, and deposited practice receipts into it. She then used the account as her slush fund for travel, property payments, meal purchases, and other personal expenses on credit cards she fraudulently opened in the practice’s name. This continued for several years.

Because this case has received national attention, I am republishing my column on embezzlement, which includes recommendations that could prevent such unfortunate situations from occurring.

Few crimes are more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; but their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: the person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.

Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.

Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Over a year ago, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.

Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.”

Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.

Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.

Ask about computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and should have safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.

Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information websites. (See my previous columns on hiring at http://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/managing-your-practice.)

Look for “red flags.” Examples are employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work; or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.

Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and you will be assured of some measure of recovery should your safeguards fail. In addition, the mere knowledge that your staff is bonded will frighten off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

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

In November, the office manager of a San Antonio dermatology practice was sentenced to 46 months in prison for defrauding the practice of nearly $350,000 from patient billings and employee profit sharing accounts.

Per the indictment, the practice conducted a nonprofit educational symposium in 2012. A bank account was established to collect contributions for that event, which was supposed to be closed at its conclusion; but the office manager kept it open, and deposited practice receipts into it. She then used the account as her slush fund for travel, property payments, meal purchases, and other personal expenses on credit cards she fraudulently opened in the practice’s name. This continued for several years.

Because this case has received national attention, I am republishing my column on embezzlement, which includes recommendations that could prevent such unfortunate situations from occurring.

Few crimes are more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; but their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: the person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.

Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.

Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Over a year ago, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.

Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.”

Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.

Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.

Ask about computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and should have safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.

Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information websites. (See my previous columns on hiring at http://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/managing-your-practice.)

Look for “red flags.” Examples are employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work; or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.

Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and you will be assured of some measure of recovery should your safeguards fail. In addition, the mere knowledge that your staff is bonded will frighten off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

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

The Diagnosis: Osteoma Cutis

Osteoma cutis is the heterotopic development of cutaneous ossifications in the dermis or subcutaneous fat and presents as plaquelike, stony, hard nodules. It can manifest as either a primary or secondary condition based on the presence or absence of a prior skin insult at the lesion site. Primary osteoma cutis occurs in 15% of patients and arises either de novo or in association with any of several inflammatory, neoplastic, and metabolic diseases that provide a favorable environment for abnormal mesenchymal stem cell commitment to osteoid,¹ including Albright hereditary osteodystrophy, myositis ossificans progressiva, and progressive osseous heteroplasia, which are all associated with mutations in the heterotrimeric G-protein alpha subunit encoding gene, GNAS. ^1,2 It is suggested that an insufficiency of Gsα leads to uncontrolled negative regulation of nonosseous connective tissue differentiation, forming osteoid.³ Additionally, diseases involving gain-of-function mutations in the activin A receptor type 1 encoding gene, ACVR1, such as fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, have been associated with osteoma cutis.⁴ These mutations lead to decreased receptor affinity to molecular safeguards of bone morphogenetic protein signaling, ultimately contributing to progressive ectopic bone formation.⁵ Secondary osteoma cutis occurs in 85% of patients and develops at the site of prior skin damage due to inflammation, neoplasm, or trauma.⁶ It is believed that tissue damage and degeneration lead to mesenchymal stem cell proliferation and skeletogenicinducing factor recruitment forming cartilaginous tissue, later replaced by bone through endochondral ossification.⁷

Although osteoma cutis previously was believed to be rare, more recent radiologic studies suggest otherwise, detecting cutaneous osteomas in up to 42.1% of patients.⁸ Consequently, it is likely that osteoma cutis is underdiagnosed due to its subclinical nature. Our patient, however, presented with a solitary osteoma cutis with perforation of the epidermis, a rare phenomenon.^9-12

A shave biopsy in our patient revealed moderate to focally marked, irregular epidermal hyperplasia with a large focus of moderate, compact, parakeratotic crust overlying the epidermis in the center of the specimen. The papillary dermis in the center of the specimen revealed large foci of dark pink to purple bone fragments surrounded by moderate lymphocytic infiltrate with few foci perforating through the overlying epidermis (Figure, A). These findings were characteristic of osteoma cutis with perforation through the overlying epidermis.

The diagnosis of osteoma cutis at the age of 62 years suggested that the lesion was not primary in association with previously described diseases. Furthermore, the lack of phenotypic features of these diseases including obesity, developmental disability, and high parathyroid hormone levels essentially excluded this possibility. The presence of the lesion on the lower extremities initially may have suggested osteoma cutis secondary to chronic venous insufficiency¹³; however, the absence of visible varicose veins or obvious signs of stasis disease made this unlikely. No further cutaneous disorders at or around the lesion site clinically and histologically suggested that our patient’s lesion was primary and of idiopathic nature. Dermatofibroma can present similarly in appearance but would characteristically dimple centrally when pinched. Keratoacanthoma presents with central ulceration and keratin plugging. Pilomatricoma more commonly presents on the head and neck and less frequently as a firm nodule. Lastly, prurigo nodularis more commonly presents as a symmetrically diffuse rash compared to an isolated nodule.

Osteoma cutis is a cutaneous ossification that may be primary or secondary in nature and less rare than originally thought. Workup for potentially associated inflammatory, neoplastic, and metabolic diseases should be considered in patients with this condition. Perforating osteoma cutis is a rare variant that presents as solitary or multiple nodules with central erosion and crust. The mechanism of transepidermal elimination leading to skin perforation is hypothesized to involve epidermal hyperproliferation leading to upward movement.¹⁴ Shave biopsy establishes a definitive histopathologic diagnosis and often is curative. Given that lesions of osteoma cutis themselves are benign, removal may not be necessary.

The Diagnosis: Osteoma Cutis

Osteoma cutis is the heterotopic development of cutaneous ossifications in the dermis or subcutaneous fat and presents as plaquelike, stony, hard nodules. It can manifest as either a primary or secondary condition based on the presence or absence of a prior skin insult at the lesion site. Primary osteoma cutis occurs in 15% of patients and arises either de novo or in association with any of several inflammatory, neoplastic, and metabolic diseases that provide a favorable environment for abnormal mesenchymal stem cell commitment to osteoid,¹ including Albright hereditary osteodystrophy, myositis ossificans progressiva, and progressive osseous heteroplasia, which are all associated with mutations in the heterotrimeric G-protein alpha subunit encoding gene, GNAS. ^1,2 It is suggested that an insufficiency of Gsα leads to uncontrolled negative regulation of nonosseous connective tissue differentiation, forming osteoid.³ Additionally, diseases involving gain-of-function mutations in the activin A receptor type 1 encoding gene, ACVR1, such as fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, have been associated with osteoma cutis.⁴ These mutations lead to decreased receptor affinity to molecular safeguards of bone morphogenetic protein signaling, ultimately contributing to progressive ectopic bone formation.⁵ Secondary osteoma cutis occurs in 85% of patients and develops at the site of prior skin damage due to inflammation, neoplasm, or trauma.⁶ It is believed that tissue damage and degeneration lead to mesenchymal stem cell proliferation and skeletogenicinducing factor recruitment forming cartilaginous tissue, later replaced by bone through endochondral ossification.⁷

Although osteoma cutis previously was believed to be rare, more recent radiologic studies suggest otherwise, detecting cutaneous osteomas in up to 42.1% of patients.⁸ Consequently, it is likely that osteoma cutis is underdiagnosed due to its subclinical nature. Our patient, however, presented with a solitary osteoma cutis with perforation of the epidermis, a rare phenomenon.^9-12

A shave biopsy in our patient revealed moderate to focally marked, irregular epidermal hyperplasia with a large focus of moderate, compact, parakeratotic crust overlying the epidermis in the center of the specimen. The papillary dermis in the center of the specimen revealed large foci of dark pink to purple bone fragments surrounded by moderate lymphocytic infiltrate with few foci perforating through the overlying epidermis (Figure, A). These findings were characteristic of osteoma cutis with perforation through the overlying epidermis.

The diagnosis of osteoma cutis at the age of 62 years suggested that the lesion was not primary in association with previously described diseases. Furthermore, the lack of phenotypic features of these diseases including obesity, developmental disability, and high parathyroid hormone levels essentially excluded this possibility. The presence of the lesion on the lower extremities initially may have suggested osteoma cutis secondary to chronic venous insufficiency¹³; however, the absence of visible varicose veins or obvious signs of stasis disease made this unlikely. No further cutaneous disorders at or around the lesion site clinically and histologically suggested that our patient’s lesion was primary and of idiopathic nature. Dermatofibroma can present similarly in appearance but would characteristically dimple centrally when pinched. Keratoacanthoma presents with central ulceration and keratin plugging. Pilomatricoma more commonly presents on the head and neck and less frequently as a firm nodule. Lastly, prurigo nodularis more commonly presents as a symmetrically diffuse rash compared to an isolated nodule.

Osteoma cutis is a cutaneous ossification that may be primary or secondary in nature and less rare than originally thought. Workup for potentially associated inflammatory, neoplastic, and metabolic diseases should be considered in patients with this condition. Perforating osteoma cutis is a rare variant that presents as solitary or multiple nodules with central erosion and crust. The mechanism of transepidermal elimination leading to skin perforation is hypothesized to involve epidermal hyperproliferation leading to upward movement.¹⁴ Shave biopsy establishes a definitive histopathologic diagnosis and often is curative. Given that lesions of osteoma cutis themselves are benign, removal may not be necessary.

The Diagnosis: Osteoma Cutis

Osteoma cutis is the heterotopic development of cutaneous ossifications in the dermis or subcutaneous fat and presents as plaquelike, stony, hard nodules. It can manifest as either a primary or secondary condition based on the presence or absence of a prior skin insult at the lesion site. Primary osteoma cutis occurs in 15% of patients and arises either de novo or in association with any of several inflammatory, neoplastic, and metabolic diseases that provide a favorable environment for abnormal mesenchymal stem cell commitment to osteoid,¹ including Albright hereditary osteodystrophy, myositis ossificans progressiva, and progressive osseous heteroplasia, which are all associated with mutations in the heterotrimeric G-protein alpha subunit encoding gene, GNAS. ^1,2 It is suggested that an insufficiency of Gsα leads to uncontrolled negative regulation of nonosseous connective tissue differentiation, forming osteoid.³ Additionally, diseases involving gain-of-function mutations in the activin A receptor type 1 encoding gene, ACVR1, such as fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, have been associated with osteoma cutis.⁴ These mutations lead to decreased receptor affinity to molecular safeguards of bone morphogenetic protein signaling, ultimately contributing to progressive ectopic bone formation.⁵ Secondary osteoma cutis occurs in 85% of patients and develops at the site of prior skin damage due to inflammation, neoplasm, or trauma.⁶ It is believed that tissue damage and degeneration lead to mesenchymal stem cell proliferation and skeletogenicinducing factor recruitment forming cartilaginous tissue, later replaced by bone through endochondral ossification.⁷

Although osteoma cutis previously was believed to be rare, more recent radiologic studies suggest otherwise, detecting cutaneous osteomas in up to 42.1% of patients.⁸ Consequently, it is likely that osteoma cutis is underdiagnosed due to its subclinical nature. Our patient, however, presented with a solitary osteoma cutis with perforation of the epidermis, a rare phenomenon.^9-12

A shave biopsy in our patient revealed moderate to focally marked, irregular epidermal hyperplasia with a large focus of moderate, compact, parakeratotic crust overlying the epidermis in the center of the specimen. The papillary dermis in the center of the specimen revealed large foci of dark pink to purple bone fragments surrounded by moderate lymphocytic infiltrate with few foci perforating through the overlying epidermis (Figure, A). These findings were characteristic of osteoma cutis with perforation through the overlying epidermis.

The diagnosis of osteoma cutis at the age of 62 years suggested that the lesion was not primary in association with previously described diseases. Furthermore, the lack of phenotypic features of these diseases including obesity, developmental disability, and high parathyroid hormone levels essentially excluded this possibility. The presence of the lesion on the lower extremities initially may have suggested osteoma cutis secondary to chronic venous insufficiency¹³; however, the absence of visible varicose veins or obvious signs of stasis disease made this unlikely. No further cutaneous disorders at or around the lesion site clinically and histologically suggested that our patient’s lesion was primary and of idiopathic nature. Dermatofibroma can present similarly in appearance but would characteristically dimple centrally when pinched. Keratoacanthoma presents with central ulceration and keratin plugging. Pilomatricoma more commonly presents on the head and neck and less frequently as a firm nodule. Lastly, prurigo nodularis more commonly presents as a symmetrically diffuse rash compared to an isolated nodule.

Osteoma cutis is a cutaneous ossification that may be primary or secondary in nature and less rare than originally thought. Workup for potentially associated inflammatory, neoplastic, and metabolic diseases should be considered in patients with this condition. Perforating osteoma cutis is a rare variant that presents as solitary or multiple nodules with central erosion and crust. The mechanism of transepidermal elimination leading to skin perforation is hypothesized to involve epidermal hyperproliferation leading to upward movement.¹⁴ Shave biopsy establishes a definitive histopathologic diagnosis and often is curative. Given that lesions of osteoma cutis themselves are benign, removal may not be necessary.

An analysis of open-access skin image datasets available to train machine-learning algorithms to identify skin cancer has revealed that darker skin types are markedly underrepresented in the databases, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

Out of 106,950 skin lesions documented in 21 open-access databases and 17 open-access atlases identified by David Wen, BMBCh, from the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues, 2,436 images contained information on Fitzpatrick skin type. Of these, “only 10 images were from individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type V, and only a single image was from an individual with Fitzpatrick skin type VI,” the researchers said. “The ethnicity of these individuals was either Brazilian or unknown.”

In two datasets containing 1,585 images with ethnicity data, “no images were from individuals with an African, Afro-Caribbean, or South Asian background,” Dr. Wen and colleagues noted. “Coupled with the geographical origins of datasets, there was massive under-representation of skin lesion images from darker-skinned populations.”

The results of their systematic review were presented at the National Cancer Research Institute Festival and published on Nov. 9, 2021, in The Lancet Digital Health. To the best of their knowledge, they wrote, this is “the first systematic review of publicly available skin lesion images comprising predominantly dermoscopic and macroscopic images available through open access datasets and atlases.”

Overall, 11 of 14 datasets (79%) were from North America, Europe, or Oceania among datasets with information on country of origin, the researchers said. Either dermoscopic images or macroscopic photographs were the only types of images available in 19 of 21 (91%) datasets. There was some variation in the clinical information available, with 81,662 images (76.4%) containing information on age, 82,848 images (77.5%) having information on gender, and 79,561 images having information about body site (74.4%).

The researchers explained that these datasets might be of limited use in a real-world setting where the images aren’t representative of the population. Artificial intelligence (AI) programs that train using images of patients with one skin type, for example, can potentially misdiagnose patients of another skin type, they said.

“AI programs hold a lot of potential for diagnosing skin cancer because it can look at pictures and quickly and cost-effectively evaluate any worrying spots on the skin,” Dr. Wen said in a press release from the NCRI Festival. “However, it’s important to know about the images and patients used to develop programs, as these influence which groups of people the programs will be most effective for in real-life settings. Research has shown that programs trained on images taken from people with lighter skin types only might not be as accurate for people with darker skin, and vice versa.”

There was also “limited information on who, how and why the images were taken,” Dr. Wen said in the release. “This has implications for the programs developed from these images, due to uncertainty around how they may perform in different groups of people, especially in those who aren’t well represented in datasets, such as those with darker skin. This can potentially lead to the exclusion or even harm of these groups from AI technologies.”

While there are no current guidelines for developing skin image datasets, quality standards are needed, according to the researchers.

“Ensuring equitable digital health includes building unbiased, representative datasets to ensure that the algorithms that are created benefit people of all backgrounds and skin types,” they concluded in the study.

Neil Steven, MBBS, MA, PhD, FRCP, an NCRI Skin Group member who was not involved with the research, stated in the press release that the results from the study by Dr. Wen and colleagues “raise concerns about the ability of AI to assist in skin cancer diagnosis, especially in a global context.”

“I hope this work will continue and help ensure that the progress we make in using AI in medicine will benefit all patients, recognizing that human skin color is highly diverse,” said Dr. Steven, honorary consultant in medical oncology at University Hospitals Birmingham (England) NHS Foundation Trust.

‘We need more images of everybody’

Dermatologist Adewole Adamson, MD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of internal medicine (division of dermatology) at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview that a “major potential downside” of algorithms not trained on diverse datasets is the potential for incorrect diagnoses.

“The harms of algorithms used for diagnostic purposes in the skin can be particularly significant because of the scalability of this technology. A lot of thought needs to be put into how these algorithms are developed and tested,” said Dr. Adamson, who reviewed the manuscript of The Lancet Digital Health study but was not involved with the research.

He referred to the results of a recently published study in JAMA Dermatology, which found that only 10% of studies used to develop or test deep-learning algorithms contained metadata on skin tone. “Furthermore, most datasets are from countries where darker skin types are not represented. [These] algorithms therefore likely underperform on people of darker skin types and thus, users should be wary,” Dr. Adamson said.

A consensus guideline should be developed for public AI algorithms, he said, which should have metadata containing information on sex, race/ethnicity, geographic location, skin type, and part of the body. “This distribution should also be reported in any publication of an algorithm so that users can see if the distribution of the population in the training data mirrors that of the population in which it is intended to be used,” he added.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the research, said that, while this issue of underrepresentation has been known in dermatology for some time, the strength of the Lancet study is that it is a large study, with a message of “we need more images of everybody.”

“This is probably the broadest study looking at every possible accessible resource and taking an organized approach,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “But I think it also raises some important points about how we think about skin tones and how we refer to them as well with respect to misusing classification schemes that we currently have.”

While using ethnicity data and certain Fitzpatrick skin types as a proxy for darker skin is a limitation of the metadata the study authors had available, it also highlights “a broader problem with respect to lexicon regarding skin tone,” he explained.

“Skin does not have a race, it doesn’t have an ethnicity,” Dr. Friedman said.

A dataset that contains not only different skin tones but how different dermatologic conditions look across skin tones is important. “If you just look at one photo of one skin tone, you missed the fact that clinical presentations can be so polymorphic, especially because of different skin tones,” Dr. Friedman said.

“We need to keep pushing this message to ensure that images keep getting collected. We [need to] ensure that there’s quality control with these images and that we’re disseminating them in a way that everyone has access, both from self-learning, but also to teach others,” said Dr. Friedman, coeditor of a recently introduced dermatology atlas showing skin conditions in different skin tones.

Adamson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Friedman is a coeditor of a dermatology atlas supported by Allergan Aesthetics and SkinBetter Science. This study was funded by NHSX and the Health Foundation. Three authors reported being paid employees of Databiology at the time of the study. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An analysis of open-access skin image datasets available to train machine-learning algorithms to identify skin cancer has revealed that darker skin types are markedly underrepresented in the databases, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

Out of 106,950 skin lesions documented in 21 open-access databases and 17 open-access atlases identified by David Wen, BMBCh, from the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues, 2,436 images contained information on Fitzpatrick skin type. Of these, “only 10 images were from individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type V, and only a single image was from an individual with Fitzpatrick skin type VI,” the researchers said. “The ethnicity of these individuals was either Brazilian or unknown.”

In two datasets containing 1,585 images with ethnicity data, “no images were from individuals with an African, Afro-Caribbean, or South Asian background,” Dr. Wen and colleagues noted. “Coupled with the geographical origins of datasets, there was massive under-representation of skin lesion images from darker-skinned populations.”

The results of their systematic review were presented at the National Cancer Research Institute Festival and published on Nov. 9, 2021, in The Lancet Digital Health. To the best of their knowledge, they wrote, this is “the first systematic review of publicly available skin lesion images comprising predominantly dermoscopic and macroscopic images available through open access datasets and atlases.”

Overall, 11 of 14 datasets (79%) were from North America, Europe, or Oceania among datasets with information on country of origin, the researchers said. Either dermoscopic images or macroscopic photographs were the only types of images available in 19 of 21 (91%) datasets. There was some variation in the clinical information available, with 81,662 images (76.4%) containing information on age, 82,848 images (77.5%) having information on gender, and 79,561 images having information about body site (74.4%).

The researchers explained that these datasets might be of limited use in a real-world setting where the images aren’t representative of the population. Artificial intelligence (AI) programs that train using images of patients with one skin type, for example, can potentially misdiagnose patients of another skin type, they said.

“AI programs hold a lot of potential for diagnosing skin cancer because it can look at pictures and quickly and cost-effectively evaluate any worrying spots on the skin,” Dr. Wen said in a press release from the NCRI Festival. “However, it’s important to know about the images and patients used to develop programs, as these influence which groups of people the programs will be most effective for in real-life settings. Research has shown that programs trained on images taken from people with lighter skin types only might not be as accurate for people with darker skin, and vice versa.”

There was also “limited information on who, how and why the images were taken,” Dr. Wen said in the release. “This has implications for the programs developed from these images, due to uncertainty around how they may perform in different groups of people, especially in those who aren’t well represented in datasets, such as those with darker skin. This can potentially lead to the exclusion or even harm of these groups from AI technologies.”

While there are no current guidelines for developing skin image datasets, quality standards are needed, according to the researchers.

“Ensuring equitable digital health includes building unbiased, representative datasets to ensure that the algorithms that are created benefit people of all backgrounds and skin types,” they concluded in the study.

Neil Steven, MBBS, MA, PhD, FRCP, an NCRI Skin Group member who was not involved with the research, stated in the press release that the results from the study by Dr. Wen and colleagues “raise concerns about the ability of AI to assist in skin cancer diagnosis, especially in a global context.”

“I hope this work will continue and help ensure that the progress we make in using AI in medicine will benefit all patients, recognizing that human skin color is highly diverse,” said Dr. Steven, honorary consultant in medical oncology at University Hospitals Birmingham (England) NHS Foundation Trust.

‘We need more images of everybody’

Dermatologist Adewole Adamson, MD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of internal medicine (division of dermatology) at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview that a “major potential downside” of algorithms not trained on diverse datasets is the potential for incorrect diagnoses.

“The harms of algorithms used for diagnostic purposes in the skin can be particularly significant because of the scalability of this technology. A lot of thought needs to be put into how these algorithms are developed and tested,” said Dr. Adamson, who reviewed the manuscript of The Lancet Digital Health study but was not involved with the research.

He referred to the results of a recently published study in JAMA Dermatology, which found that only 10% of studies used to develop or test deep-learning algorithms contained metadata on skin tone. “Furthermore, most datasets are from countries where darker skin types are not represented. [These] algorithms therefore likely underperform on people of darker skin types and thus, users should be wary,” Dr. Adamson said.

A consensus guideline should be developed for public AI algorithms, he said, which should have metadata containing information on sex, race/ethnicity, geographic location, skin type, and part of the body. “This distribution should also be reported in any publication of an algorithm so that users can see if the distribution of the population in the training data mirrors that of the population in which it is intended to be used,” he added.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the research, said that, while this issue of underrepresentation has been known in dermatology for some time, the strength of the Lancet study is that it is a large study, with a message of “we need more images of everybody.”

“This is probably the broadest study looking at every possible accessible resource and taking an organized approach,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “But I think it also raises some important points about how we think about skin tones and how we refer to them as well with respect to misusing classification schemes that we currently have.”

While using ethnicity data and certain Fitzpatrick skin types as a proxy for darker skin is a limitation of the metadata the study authors had available, it also highlights “a broader problem with respect to lexicon regarding skin tone,” he explained.

“Skin does not have a race, it doesn’t have an ethnicity,” Dr. Friedman said.

A dataset that contains not only different skin tones but how different dermatologic conditions look across skin tones is important. “If you just look at one photo of one skin tone, you missed the fact that clinical presentations can be so polymorphic, especially because of different skin tones,” Dr. Friedman said.

“We need to keep pushing this message to ensure that images keep getting collected. We [need to] ensure that there’s quality control with these images and that we’re disseminating them in a way that everyone has access, both from self-learning, but also to teach others,” said Dr. Friedman, coeditor of a recently introduced dermatology atlas showing skin conditions in different skin tones.

Adamson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Friedman is a coeditor of a dermatology atlas supported by Allergan Aesthetics and SkinBetter Science. This study was funded by NHSX and the Health Foundation. Three authors reported being paid employees of Databiology at the time of the study. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An analysis of open-access skin image datasets available to train machine-learning algorithms to identify skin cancer has revealed that darker skin types are markedly underrepresented in the databases, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

Out of 106,950 skin lesions documented in 21 open-access databases and 17 open-access atlases identified by David Wen, BMBCh, from the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues, 2,436 images contained information on Fitzpatrick skin type. Of these, “only 10 images were from individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type V, and only a single image was from an individual with Fitzpatrick skin type VI,” the researchers said. “The ethnicity of these individuals was either Brazilian or unknown.”

In two datasets containing 1,585 images with ethnicity data, “no images were from individuals with an African, Afro-Caribbean, or South Asian background,” Dr. Wen and colleagues noted. “Coupled with the geographical origins of datasets, there was massive under-representation of skin lesion images from darker-skinned populations.”

The results of their systematic review were presented at the National Cancer Research Institute Festival and published on Nov. 9, 2021, in The Lancet Digital Health. To the best of their knowledge, they wrote, this is “the first systematic review of publicly available skin lesion images comprising predominantly dermoscopic and macroscopic images available through open access datasets and atlases.”

Overall, 11 of 14 datasets (79%) were from North America, Europe, or Oceania among datasets with information on country of origin, the researchers said. Either dermoscopic images or macroscopic photographs were the only types of images available in 19 of 21 (91%) datasets. There was some variation in the clinical information available, with 81,662 images (76.4%) containing information on age, 82,848 images (77.5%) having information on gender, and 79,561 images having information about body site (74.4%).

The researchers explained that these datasets might be of limited use in a real-world setting where the images aren’t representative of the population. Artificial intelligence (AI) programs that train using images of patients with one skin type, for example, can potentially misdiagnose patients of another skin type, they said.

“AI programs hold a lot of potential for diagnosing skin cancer because it can look at pictures and quickly and cost-effectively evaluate any worrying spots on the skin,” Dr. Wen said in a press release from the NCRI Festival. “However, it’s important to know about the images and patients used to develop programs, as these influence which groups of people the programs will be most effective for in real-life settings. Research has shown that programs trained on images taken from people with lighter skin types only might not be as accurate for people with darker skin, and vice versa.”

There was also “limited information on who, how and why the images were taken,” Dr. Wen said in the release. “This has implications for the programs developed from these images, due to uncertainty around how they may perform in different groups of people, especially in those who aren’t well represented in datasets, such as those with darker skin. This can potentially lead to the exclusion or even harm of these groups from AI technologies.”

While there are no current guidelines for developing skin image datasets, quality standards are needed, according to the researchers.

“Ensuring equitable digital health includes building unbiased, representative datasets to ensure that the algorithms that are created benefit people of all backgrounds and skin types,” they concluded in the study.

Neil Steven, MBBS, MA, PhD, FRCP, an NCRI Skin Group member who was not involved with the research, stated in the press release that the results from the study by Dr. Wen and colleagues “raise concerns about the ability of AI to assist in skin cancer diagnosis, especially in a global context.”

“I hope this work will continue and help ensure that the progress we make in using AI in medicine will benefit all patients, recognizing that human skin color is highly diverse,” said Dr. Steven, honorary consultant in medical oncology at University Hospitals Birmingham (England) NHS Foundation Trust.

‘We need more images of everybody’

Dermatologist Adewole Adamson, MD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of internal medicine (division of dermatology) at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview that a “major potential downside” of algorithms not trained on diverse datasets is the potential for incorrect diagnoses.

“The harms of algorithms used for diagnostic purposes in the skin can be particularly significant because of the scalability of this technology. A lot of thought needs to be put into how these algorithms are developed and tested,” said Dr. Adamson, who reviewed the manuscript of The Lancet Digital Health study but was not involved with the research.

He referred to the results of a recently published study in JAMA Dermatology, which found that only 10% of studies used to develop or test deep-learning algorithms contained metadata on skin tone. “Furthermore, most datasets are from countries where darker skin types are not represented. [These] algorithms therefore likely underperform on people of darker skin types and thus, users should be wary,” Dr. Adamson said.

A consensus guideline should be developed for public AI algorithms, he said, which should have metadata containing information on sex, race/ethnicity, geographic location, skin type, and part of the body. “This distribution should also be reported in any publication of an algorithm so that users can see if the distribution of the population in the training data mirrors that of the population in which it is intended to be used,” he added.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the research, said that, while this issue of underrepresentation has been known in dermatology for some time, the strength of the Lancet study is that it is a large study, with a message of “we need more images of everybody.”

“This is probably the broadest study looking at every possible accessible resource and taking an organized approach,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “But I think it also raises some important points about how we think about skin tones and how we refer to them as well with respect to misusing classification schemes that we currently have.”

While using ethnicity data and certain Fitzpatrick skin types as a proxy for darker skin is a limitation of the metadata the study authors had available, it also highlights “a broader problem with respect to lexicon regarding skin tone,” he explained.

“Skin does not have a race, it doesn’t have an ethnicity,” Dr. Friedman said.

A dataset that contains not only different skin tones but how different dermatologic conditions look across skin tones is important. “If you just look at one photo of one skin tone, you missed the fact that clinical presentations can be so polymorphic, especially because of different skin tones,” Dr. Friedman said.

“We need to keep pushing this message to ensure that images keep getting collected. We [need to] ensure that there’s quality control with these images and that we’re disseminating them in a way that everyone has access, both from self-learning, but also to teach others,” said Dr. Friedman, coeditor of a recently introduced dermatology atlas showing skin conditions in different skin tones.

Adamson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Friedman is a coeditor of a dermatology atlas supported by Allergan Aesthetics and SkinBetter Science. This study was funded by NHSX and the Health Foundation. Three authors reported being paid employees of Databiology at the time of the study. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sea buckthorn oil continues to show up in skin care products and in skin care blogs. To avoid jumping on the bandwagon of another ingredient trend, we sought to examine the scientific background and properties of sea buckthorn oil and it’s utility for the skin.

Indre Brazauskaite/EyeEm/Getty Images

Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) – also known as a Siberian pineapple tree, and as sandthorn, sallowthorn, or seaberry – is a thorny, dioecious shrub (or tree) in the oleaster family. It can grow up to 23 feet high and is found in coastal sea cliff areas and on mountain slopes of Western Europe, and in dry sandy areas of Asia Minor and Central Asia, Siberia, China, and Tibet. Common sea buckthorn flowers in late April and early May, producing a large number of small, green and brown flowers, turning into edible, usually yellow or orange round berries. The berries have a bitter, sour taste and have a mild aroma, resembling that of a pineapple. The fruit contains a small stone that covers an oily seed.

The berries are a source of antioxidant vitamins, flavonoids, and organic acids, and when pressed, produce a juice that separates into three layers: a thick cream (upper layer), a combination of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (middle layer), and juice that is a source of fat (lower layer). The berries contain mainly vitamin C, but also vitamin A (alpha- and beta-carotene) and a mixture of other carotenoids, as well as varying concentrations of tocopherols (vitamin E), folic acid, and vitamin B complex–group vitamins.

In addition to flavonoids, the berries contain catechins and procyanidins, cyclitols, phospholipids, tannins, sugars (galactose, fructose, xylose), organic acids (maleic acid, oxalic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid), phenolic acids (such as ferulic acid), and fatty oil. The amount of vitamin C content varies with the variety of the plant and where it is found. The oil of sea buckthorn may be extracted from two parts of the plant, with mechanical cold pressing of seeds (up to 12.5% weight as oil content) and fruit pulp (8%-12% oil content).

Among vegetable oils, sea buckthorn fruit oil has the highest content of palmitoleic acid (omega-7).

Fruit and seed oils contain tocotrienols and plant sterols. Pulp sea buckthorn oil has a high carotenoid content, as opposed to seed oil, and in Mongolia, Russia, and China, is used as a topical therapy for skin burns.

Other significant fatty acids found in sea buckthorn oil are saturated fatty acids (palmitic acid and stearic acid) and polyunsaturated fatty acids, which include alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3), gamma-linolenic acid (omega-6), linolic acid (omega-6), oleic acid (omega-9), and eicosanoic acid (omega-9). Gamma-linoleic acid in particular is reduced in dry skin conditions, such as aging and atopic dermatitis. The human body can produce some gamma-linolenic acid, oleic acid, and palmitoleic acid, but not linolic acid and alpha-linolenic acid. The addition of these substances to diet or skin care has been found to be beneficial in improving dryness and the skin barrier.

In addition, linolic acid, a natural component of human sebum, has been noted to be decreased in the sebum of people with acne-prone skin. Preliminary evidence indicates that dietary supplements containing fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid, sea buckthorn oil, and hemp seed oil may decrease the severity of atopic dermatitis.

Besides use in topical skin care and cosmetic preparations, sea buckthorn has also been used successfully in the treatment of chronic gastric ulcer disease, inflammation of the vagina and cervix, and cervical erosion. The bark and leaves of sea buckthorn used to be applied to treat diarrhea and dermatologic conditions, while berry oil has been applied topically or taken orally to soften the skin.

In traditional Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan medicines, sea buckthorn berries are used for medicinal purposes, as their ingredients were thought to have a beneficial effect on the function of the alimentary, respiratory, and circulatory systems. Current studies and uses are now confirming their utility experienced over hundreds of years.

Harvesting sea buckthorn fruit is difficult because of dense thorn arrangement among the berries. Therefore, sometimes the only way to obtain fruit is to remove the entire branch of the shrub, which reduces future crops. For this reason berries can only be harvested once every 2 years.

Sea buckthorn has interesting properties and could be of benefit in topical skin care, as long as it is not overharvested or harvested in a way that has a detrimental impact on the environment.

Dr. Wesley and Lily Talakoub, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
 

References

United States Department of Agriculture. PLANTS Profile for Hippophae rhamnoides (seaberry). 2007.

Zielińska A and Nowak I. Lipids Health Dis. 2017 May 19;16(1):95.

Reynolds KA et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019 Dec;58(12):1371-6.

Sea buckthorn oil continues to show up in skin care products and in skin care blogs. To avoid jumping on the bandwagon of another ingredient trend, we sought to examine the scientific background and properties of sea buckthorn oil and it’s utility for the skin.

Indre Brazauskaite/EyeEm/Getty Images

Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) – also known as a Siberian pineapple tree, and as sandthorn, sallowthorn, or seaberry – is a thorny, dioecious shrub (or tree) in the oleaster family. It can grow up to 23 feet high and is found in coastal sea cliff areas and on mountain slopes of Western Europe, and in dry sandy areas of Asia Minor and Central Asia, Siberia, China, and Tibet. Common sea buckthorn flowers in late April and early May, producing a large number of small, green and brown flowers, turning into edible, usually yellow or orange round berries. The berries have a bitter, sour taste and have a mild aroma, resembling that of a pineapple. The fruit contains a small stone that covers an oily seed.

The berries are a source of antioxidant vitamins, flavonoids, and organic acids, and when pressed, produce a juice that separates into three layers: a thick cream (upper layer), a combination of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (middle layer), and juice that is a source of fat (lower layer). The berries contain mainly vitamin C, but also vitamin A (alpha- and beta-carotene) and a mixture of other carotenoids, as well as varying concentrations of tocopherols (vitamin E), folic acid, and vitamin B complex–group vitamins.

In addition to flavonoids, the berries contain catechins and procyanidins, cyclitols, phospholipids, tannins, sugars (galactose, fructose, xylose), organic acids (maleic acid, oxalic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid), phenolic acids (such as ferulic acid), and fatty oil. The amount of vitamin C content varies with the variety of the plant and where it is found. The oil of sea buckthorn may be extracted from two parts of the plant, with mechanical cold pressing of seeds (up to 12.5% weight as oil content) and fruit pulp (8%-12% oil content).

Among vegetable oils, sea buckthorn fruit oil has the highest content of palmitoleic acid (omega-7).

Fruit and seed oils contain tocotrienols and plant sterols. Pulp sea buckthorn oil has a high carotenoid content, as opposed to seed oil, and in Mongolia, Russia, and China, is used as a topical therapy for skin burns.

Other significant fatty acids found in sea buckthorn oil are saturated fatty acids (palmitic acid and stearic acid) and polyunsaturated fatty acids, which include alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3), gamma-linolenic acid (omega-6), linolic acid (omega-6), oleic acid (omega-9), and eicosanoic acid (omega-9). Gamma-linoleic acid in particular is reduced in dry skin conditions, such as aging and atopic dermatitis. The human body can produce some gamma-linolenic acid, oleic acid, and palmitoleic acid, but not linolic acid and alpha-linolenic acid. The addition of these substances to diet or skin care has been found to be beneficial in improving dryness and the skin barrier.

In addition, linolic acid, a natural component of human sebum, has been noted to be decreased in the sebum of people with acne-prone skin. Preliminary evidence indicates that dietary supplements containing fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid, sea buckthorn oil, and hemp seed oil may decrease the severity of atopic dermatitis.

Besides use in topical skin care and cosmetic preparations, sea buckthorn has also been used successfully in the treatment of chronic gastric ulcer disease, inflammation of the vagina and cervix, and cervical erosion. The bark and leaves of sea buckthorn used to be applied to treat diarrhea and dermatologic conditions, while berry oil has been applied topically or taken orally to soften the skin.

In traditional Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan medicines, sea buckthorn berries are used for medicinal purposes, as their ingredients were thought to have a beneficial effect on the function of the alimentary, respiratory, and circulatory systems. Current studies and uses are now confirming their utility experienced over hundreds of years.

Harvesting sea buckthorn fruit is difficult because of dense thorn arrangement among the berries. Therefore, sometimes the only way to obtain fruit is to remove the entire branch of the shrub, which reduces future crops. For this reason berries can only be harvested once every 2 years.

Sea buckthorn has interesting properties and could be of benefit in topical skin care, as long as it is not overharvested or harvested in a way that has a detrimental impact on the environment.

Dr. Wesley and Lily Talakoub, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
 

References

United States Department of Agriculture. PLANTS Profile for Hippophae rhamnoides (seaberry). 2007.

Zielińska A and Nowak I. Lipids Health Dis. 2017 May 19;16(1):95.

Reynolds KA et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019 Dec;58(12):1371-6.

Sea buckthorn oil continues to show up in skin care products and in skin care blogs. To avoid jumping on the bandwagon of another ingredient trend, we sought to examine the scientific background and properties of sea buckthorn oil and it’s utility for the skin.

Indre Brazauskaite/EyeEm/Getty Images

Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) – also known as a Siberian pineapple tree, and as sandthorn, sallowthorn, or seaberry – is a thorny, dioecious shrub (or tree) in the oleaster family. It can grow up to 23 feet high and is found in coastal sea cliff areas and on mountain slopes of Western Europe, and in dry sandy areas of Asia Minor and Central Asia, Siberia, China, and Tibet. Common sea buckthorn flowers in late April and early May, producing a large number of small, green and brown flowers, turning into edible, usually yellow or orange round berries. The berries have a bitter, sour taste and have a mild aroma, resembling that of a pineapple. The fruit contains a small stone that covers an oily seed.

The berries are a source of antioxidant vitamins, flavonoids, and organic acids, and when pressed, produce a juice that separates into three layers: a thick cream (upper layer), a combination of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (middle layer), and juice that is a source of fat (lower layer). The berries contain mainly vitamin C, but also vitamin A (alpha- and beta-carotene) and a mixture of other carotenoids, as well as varying concentrations of tocopherols (vitamin E), folic acid, and vitamin B complex–group vitamins.

In addition to flavonoids, the berries contain catechins and procyanidins, cyclitols, phospholipids, tannins, sugars (galactose, fructose, xylose), organic acids (maleic acid, oxalic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid), phenolic acids (such as ferulic acid), and fatty oil. The amount of vitamin C content varies with the variety of the plant and where it is found. The oil of sea buckthorn may be extracted from two parts of the plant, with mechanical cold pressing of seeds (up to 12.5% weight as oil content) and fruit pulp (8%-12% oil content).

Among vegetable oils, sea buckthorn fruit oil has the highest content of palmitoleic acid (omega-7).

Fruit and seed oils contain tocotrienols and plant sterols. Pulp sea buckthorn oil has a high carotenoid content, as opposed to seed oil, and in Mongolia, Russia, and China, is used as a topical therapy for skin burns.

Other significant fatty acids found in sea buckthorn oil are saturated fatty acids (palmitic acid and stearic acid) and polyunsaturated fatty acids, which include alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3), gamma-linolenic acid (omega-6), linolic acid (omega-6), oleic acid (omega-9), and eicosanoic acid (omega-9). Gamma-linoleic acid in particular is reduced in dry skin conditions, such as aging and atopic dermatitis. The human body can produce some gamma-linolenic acid, oleic acid, and palmitoleic acid, but not linolic acid and alpha-linolenic acid. The addition of these substances to diet or skin care has been found to be beneficial in improving dryness and the skin barrier.

In addition, linolic acid, a natural component of human sebum, has been noted to be decreased in the sebum of people with acne-prone skin. Preliminary evidence indicates that dietary supplements containing fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid, sea buckthorn oil, and hemp seed oil may decrease the severity of atopic dermatitis.

Besides use in topical skin care and cosmetic preparations, sea buckthorn has also been used successfully in the treatment of chronic gastric ulcer disease, inflammation of the vagina and cervix, and cervical erosion. The bark and leaves of sea buckthorn used to be applied to treat diarrhea and dermatologic conditions, while berry oil has been applied topically or taken orally to soften the skin.

In traditional Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan medicines, sea buckthorn berries are used for medicinal purposes, as their ingredients were thought to have a beneficial effect on the function of the alimentary, respiratory, and circulatory systems. Current studies and uses are now confirming their utility experienced over hundreds of years.

Harvesting sea buckthorn fruit is difficult because of dense thorn arrangement among the berries. Therefore, sometimes the only way to obtain fruit is to remove the entire branch of the shrub, which reduces future crops. For this reason berries can only be harvested once every 2 years.

Sea buckthorn has interesting properties and could be of benefit in topical skin care, as long as it is not overharvested or harvested in a way that has a detrimental impact on the environment.

Dr. Wesley and Lily Talakoub, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
 

References

United States Department of Agriculture. PLANTS Profile for Hippophae rhamnoides (seaberry). 2007.

Zielińska A and Nowak I. Lipids Health Dis. 2017 May 19;16(1):95.

Reynolds KA et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019 Dec;58(12):1371-6.

Key clinical point: Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who respond inadequately to ustekinumab should preferably be switched to brodalumab rather than guselkumab.

Major finding: Patients with an inadequate response to ustekinumab who switched to brodalumab vs guselkumab had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 response rate at week 36 (40.3% vs 20.0%; P < .001) and PASI 90 response rate at weeks 12 (62.7% vs 48.1%; P = .002) and 36 (63.7% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study details: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison study employed data for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who responded inadequately to ustekinumab and switched to receive brodalumab (n=121) in AMAGINE-2 and -3 and or to receive guselkumab (n=135) in NAVIGATE, phase 3, trials.

Disclosures: The study was supported by LEO Pharma A/S. P Hampton and M Augustin declared receiving research/educational grants, consultation/speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses and serving as an advisory board member or clinical trial participant for various companies, including LEO Pharma. E Borg is a current employee and JB Hansen is a former employee of LEO Pharma.

Source: Hampton P et al. Psoriasis (Auckl). 2021 Nov 3. doi: 10.2147/PTT.S326121.

Key clinical point: Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who respond inadequately to ustekinumab should preferably be switched to brodalumab rather than guselkumab.

Major finding: Patients with an inadequate response to ustekinumab who switched to brodalumab vs guselkumab had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 response rate at week 36 (40.3% vs 20.0%; P < .001) and PASI 90 response rate at weeks 12 (62.7% vs 48.1%; P = .002) and 36 (63.7% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study details: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison study employed data for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who responded inadequately to ustekinumab and switched to receive brodalumab (n=121) in AMAGINE-2 and -3 and or to receive guselkumab (n=135) in NAVIGATE, phase 3, trials.

Disclosures: The study was supported by LEO Pharma A/S. P Hampton and M Augustin declared receiving research/educational grants, consultation/speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses and serving as an advisory board member or clinical trial participant for various companies, including LEO Pharma. E Borg is a current employee and JB Hansen is a former employee of LEO Pharma.

Source: Hampton P et al. Psoriasis (Auckl). 2021 Nov 3. doi: 10.2147/PTT.S326121.

Key clinical point: Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who respond inadequately to ustekinumab should preferably be switched to brodalumab rather than guselkumab.

Major finding: Patients with an inadequate response to ustekinumab who switched to brodalumab vs guselkumab had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 response rate at week 36 (40.3% vs 20.0%; P < .001) and PASI 90 response rate at weeks 12 (62.7% vs 48.1%; P = .002) and 36 (63.7% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study details: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison study employed data for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who responded inadequately to ustekinumab and switched to receive brodalumab (n=121) in AMAGINE-2 and -3 and or to receive guselkumab (n=135) in NAVIGATE, phase 3, trials.

Disclosures: The study was supported by LEO Pharma A/S. P Hampton and M Augustin declared receiving research/educational grants, consultation/speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses and serving as an advisory board member or clinical trial participant for various companies, including LEO Pharma. E Borg is a current employee and JB Hansen is a former employee of LEO Pharma.

Source: Hampton P et al. Psoriasis (Auckl). 2021 Nov 3. doi: 10.2147/PTT.S326121.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis exhibit significantly lower levels of salivary cortisol despite having higher psychological stress levels, suggesting the existence of an impaired cortisol response to stress.

Major finding: Although patients with psoriasis vs controls had a significantly higher Perceived Stress Scale score (17.2±0.6 vs 15.1±0.8; P = .0289), their salivary cortisol levels were significantly lower (9.6±0.5 vs 14.0±1.1 nmol/L; P < .001).

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study including 126 adult patients with plaque psoriasis who had not received systemic anti-psoriasis therapy since at least 6 months and 116 healthy adult controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Fondazione Cariplo. P Gisondi and G Girolomoni declared serving as consultants or speakers for various organizations.

Source: Gisondi P et al. J Pers Med. 2021 Oct 23. doi: 10.3390/jpm11111069.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis exhibit significantly lower levels of salivary cortisol despite having higher psychological stress levels, suggesting the existence of an impaired cortisol response to stress.

Major finding: Although patients with psoriasis vs controls had a significantly higher Perceived Stress Scale score (17.2±0.6 vs 15.1±0.8; P = .0289), their salivary cortisol levels were significantly lower (9.6±0.5 vs 14.0±1.1 nmol/L; P < .001).

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study including 126 adult patients with plaque psoriasis who had not received systemic anti-psoriasis therapy since at least 6 months and 116 healthy adult controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Fondazione Cariplo. P Gisondi and G Girolomoni declared serving as consultants or speakers for various organizations.

Source: Gisondi P et al. J Pers Med. 2021 Oct 23. doi: 10.3390/jpm11111069.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis exhibit significantly lower levels of salivary cortisol despite having higher psychological stress levels, suggesting the existence of an impaired cortisol response to stress.

Major finding: Although patients with psoriasis vs controls had a significantly higher Perceived Stress Scale score (17.2±0.6 vs 15.1±0.8; P = .0289), their salivary cortisol levels were significantly lower (9.6±0.5 vs 14.0±1.1 nmol/L; P < .001).

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study including 126 adult patients with plaque psoriasis who had not received systemic anti-psoriasis therapy since at least 6 months and 116 healthy adult controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Fondazione Cariplo. P Gisondi and G Girolomoni declared serving as consultants or speakers for various organizations.

Source: Gisondi P et al. J Pers Med. 2021 Oct 23. doi: 10.3390/jpm11111069.

Key clinical point: Given the chronic nature of the disease, antipsoriasis biologics are associated with low median persistence, which is relatively high for interleukin inhibitors vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and may change over time.

Major finding: Overall, the median persistence was 23.8 months (95% CI, 21.6-26.2), longest for ustekinumab (49.3 months [95% CI, 38.0-59.1]) and shortest for etanercept (16.3 months [95% CI, 14.5-19.0]). An approximately 50% decrease in the median persistence for ustekinumab, from 62.3 (95% CI, 45.6-∞) months to 32.7 (95% CI, 21.2-49.3) months, occurred between 2010-2011 and 2014-2016.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study consisting of 2,292 adult patients with psoriasis who had received at least 1 biologic between 2010 and 2018.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by LEO Pharma. Levin L-Å declared receiving consulting fees from various sources including LEO Pharma, and some of the authors are employees of LEO Pharma.

Source: Schmitt-Egenolf M et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00616-7.

Key clinical point: Given the chronic nature of the disease, antipsoriasis biologics are associated with low median persistence, which is relatively high for interleukin inhibitors vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and may change over time.

Major finding: Overall, the median persistence was 23.8 months (95% CI, 21.6-26.2), longest for ustekinumab (49.3 months [95% CI, 38.0-59.1]) and shortest for etanercept (16.3 months [95% CI, 14.5-19.0]). An approximately 50% decrease in the median persistence for ustekinumab, from 62.3 (95% CI, 45.6-∞) months to 32.7 (95% CI, 21.2-49.3) months, occurred between 2010-2011 and 2014-2016.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study consisting of 2,292 adult patients with psoriasis who had received at least 1 biologic between 2010 and 2018.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by LEO Pharma. Levin L-Å declared receiving consulting fees from various sources including LEO Pharma, and some of the authors are employees of LEO Pharma.

Source: Schmitt-Egenolf M et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00616-7.

Key clinical point: Given the chronic nature of the disease, antipsoriasis biologics are associated with low median persistence, which is relatively high for interleukin inhibitors vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and may change over time.

Major finding: Overall, the median persistence was 23.8 months (95% CI, 21.6-26.2), longest for ustekinumab (49.3 months [95% CI, 38.0-59.1]) and shortest for etanercept (16.3 months [95% CI, 14.5-19.0]). An approximately 50% decrease in the median persistence for ustekinumab, from 62.3 (95% CI, 45.6-∞) months to 32.7 (95% CI, 21.2-49.3) months, occurred between 2010-2011 and 2014-2016.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study consisting of 2,292 adult patients with psoriasis who had received at least 1 biologic between 2010 and 2018.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by LEO Pharma. Levin L-Å declared receiving consulting fees from various sources including LEO Pharma, and some of the authors are employees of LEO Pharma.

Source: Schmitt-Egenolf M et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00616-7.

Key clinical point: The biosimilar AVT02 is as efficacious, safe, and immunogenic as its originator, adalimumab, in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 16, AVT02 and originator adalimumab induced comparable percentage improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (91.6% and 89.6%, respectively), with the difference in percentage improvement within the predefined equivalence margins of ±10% (90% CI, −0.76 to 5.29), along with similar safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles, which lasted through week 50.

Study details: This was a phase 3 study including 413 adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis who were initially assigned to receive AVT02 or adalimumab; at week 16, the latter were randomly reassigned to continue receiving adalimumab or switch to AVT02 until week 48.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Alvotech Swiss AG. SR Feldman and R Kay disclosed receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, or consultancy fees from various sources, including Alvotech, and some of the authors declared being employees of Alvotech.

Source: Feldman SR et al. BioDrugs. 2021 Oct 16. doi: 10.1007/s40259-021-00502-w.

Key clinical point: The biosimilar AVT02 is as efficacious, safe, and immunogenic as its originator, adalimumab, in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 16, AVT02 and originator adalimumab induced comparable percentage improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (91.6% and 89.6%, respectively), with the difference in percentage improvement within the predefined equivalence margins of ±10% (90% CI, −0.76 to 5.29), along with similar safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles, which lasted through week 50.

Study details: This was a phase 3 study including 413 adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis who were initially assigned to receive AVT02 or adalimumab; at week 16, the latter were randomly reassigned to continue receiving adalimumab or switch to AVT02 until week 48.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Alvotech Swiss AG. SR Feldman and R Kay disclosed receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, or consultancy fees from various sources, including Alvotech, and some of the authors declared being employees of Alvotech.

Source: Feldman SR et al. BioDrugs. 2021 Oct 16. doi: 10.1007/s40259-021-00502-w.

Key clinical point: The biosimilar AVT02 is as efficacious, safe, and immunogenic as its originator, adalimumab, in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 16, AVT02 and originator adalimumab induced comparable percentage improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (91.6% and 89.6%, respectively), with the difference in percentage improvement within the predefined equivalence margins of ±10% (90% CI, −0.76 to 5.29), along with similar safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles, which lasted through week 50.

Study details: This was a phase 3 study including 413 adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis who were initially assigned to receive AVT02 or adalimumab; at week 16, the latter were randomly reassigned to continue receiving adalimumab or switch to AVT02 until week 48.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Alvotech Swiss AG. SR Feldman and R Kay disclosed receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, or consultancy fees from various sources, including Alvotech, and some of the authors declared being employees of Alvotech.

Source: Feldman SR et al. BioDrugs. 2021 Oct 16. doi: 10.1007/s40259-021-00502-w.

Key clinical point: Compared with secukinumab, ixekizumab concorded with significantly increased adherence rates and decreased nonpersistence, discontinuation, and switching in biologic-experienced patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: After 18 months of follow-up, ixekizumab was associated with significantly higher rates of high treatment adherence (42% vs 35%; P = .019) and persistence (44.9% vs 36.9%; P = .007) and lower discontinuation (48.4% vs 56.0%; P = .018) and switching (26.6% vs 34.0%; P = .009) rates than secukinumab.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study consisting of prior biologic-experienced adult patients with psoriasis now receiving either secukinumab (n=780) or ixekizumab (n=411).

Disclosures: The study was supported by Eli Lilly and Company, USA. The lead author declared serving as a scientific advisor/clinical study investigator for various companies including Eli Lilly. Some of the authors are full-time employees or stakeholders of Eli Lilly, and a few others work for an alternative employer, which received compensation from Eli Lilly.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00627-4.

Key clinical point: Compared with secukinumab, ixekizumab concorded with significantly increased adherence rates and decreased nonpersistence, discontinuation, and switching in biologic-experienced patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: After 18 months of follow-up, ixekizumab was associated with significantly higher rates of high treatment adherence (42% vs 35%; P = .019) and persistence (44.9% vs 36.9%; P = .007) and lower discontinuation (48.4% vs 56.0%; P = .018) and switching (26.6% vs 34.0%; P = .009) rates than secukinumab.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study consisting of prior biologic-experienced adult patients with psoriasis now receiving either secukinumab (n=780) or ixekizumab (n=411).

Disclosures: The study was supported by Eli Lilly and Company, USA. The lead author declared serving as a scientific advisor/clinical study investigator for various companies including Eli Lilly. Some of the authors are full-time employees or stakeholders of Eli Lilly, and a few others work for an alternative employer, which received compensation from Eli Lilly.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00627-4.

Key clinical point: Compared with secukinumab, ixekizumab concorded with significantly increased adherence rates and decreased nonpersistence, discontinuation, and switching in biologic-experienced patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: After 18 months of follow-up, ixekizumab was associated with significantly higher rates of high treatment adherence (42% vs 35%; P = .019) and persistence (44.9% vs 36.9%; P = .007) and lower discontinuation (48.4% vs 56.0%; P = .018) and switching (26.6% vs 34.0%; P = .009) rates than secukinumab.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study consisting of prior biologic-experienced adult patients with psoriasis now receiving either secukinumab (n=780) or ixekizumab (n=411).

Disclosures: The study was supported by Eli Lilly and Company, USA. The lead author declared serving as a scientific advisor/clinical study investigator for various companies including Eli Lilly. Some of the authors are full-time employees or stakeholders of Eli Lilly, and a few others work for an alternative employer, which received compensation from Eli Lilly.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00627-4.