MDedge Dermatology

The proposed 2022 Medicare physician fee schedule and quality payment program (QPP) regulations were released on July 13, 2021.¹ Final regulations are expected to be released on or around November 1, 2021, but they may be delayed. Multiple national medical organizations, including the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the American Society of Dermatopathology, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA), and the American Medical Association (AMA) Physicians’ Grassroots Network all work together to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to influence these regulations. Stated advocacy priorities include protecting the value of dermatopathology services, mobilizing dermatopathologists for political action, ensuring dermatopathologists can participate in new payment models, strengthening the profession with advocacy on a state level, and conducting socioeconomic research. Is your practice aware and prepared to handle the changes coming in 2022?

2021 Medicare Cuts

The recent revisions and revaluations of the outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes² resulted in a considerable redistribution of Medicare dollars in 2021, negatively impacting dermatopathologists and other specialties and services due to budget neutrality required by law (Figure). Important steps were taken to mitigate the 2021 Medicare cuts for all non–office-based dermatopathology services (eg, pathology, surgical services, emergency department).^1,3 Direct engagement by the CAP, American Society of Dermatopathology, and AADA, along with the AMA Physicians’ Grassroots Network resulted in legislative action on December 27, 2020, which directed Medicare to make a 3.75% positive adjustment to the 2021 physician payments. Additionally, the CMS updated the 2021 physician conversion factor to $34.8931, a 3.3% reduction from the 2020 conversion factor rather than $32.41, or a 10.20% decrease. The 2% payment adjustment (sequestration) through December 21, 2021, also was suspended, and Congress and the Biden administration mandated delayed implementation of the inherent complexity add-on code for E/M services (G2211) until 2024.^1,3

Threat of Medicare Cuts in 2022

Based on dermatopathology utilization data, the overall impact on reimbursement for 2022 represents an approximately 5% decrease from 2021 dermatopathology payments (Table 1).^1,4 This represents a 3.75% cut from revaluation of E/M services, and a 1% cut due to changes in practice expense pricing. The estimated change in reimbursement for independent laboratories is a 6% decrease. Advocacy groups have been working to mitigate the 2022 cuts by engaging with Congress and urging them to act before these changes go into effect next year. Keep in mind that approximately half of all pathology Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have been targeted for evaluation by the CMS since 2006.^1,4

Coding for Clinical Pathology Consultation Services

The current clinical pathology consultation services (CPT codes 80500 and 80502) previously were identified as potentially misvalued for review by the AMA Relative Value Scale Update Committee’s (RUC’s) relativity assessment workgroup.⁴ Consequently, the CAP worked with the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel to delete codes 80500 and 80502, as well as to modernize and create the 4 new clinical pathology consultation codes: 80XX0, 80XX1, 80XX2, and 80XX3. Then the CAP worked with the RUC to develop physician work and practice expense values for the new clinical pathology consultation codes. Once the fee schedule is finalized, pathologists can begin using the new codes to bill these services in 2022 (Table 2).⁴

According to CPT, clinical pathology consultation services may be reported when the following criteria have been met: (1) the pathologist renders a clinical pathology consultation at the request of a physician or qualified health care professional at the same or another institution; (2) the pathology clinical consultation request relating to pathology and laboratory findings or other relevant clinical or diagnostic information requiring additional medical interpretative judgment is made; and (3) these codes are not reported in conjunction with codes 88321, 88323, and 88325.⁴

Proposed 2022 Medicare QPP Requirements

On July 13, 2021, the CMS also published its proposed 2022 QPP proposals that will take effect next year.⁴ According to the proposed regulation, nearly all dermatopathologists will be required to participate in Medicare’s QPP, either through advanced alternative payment models (APMs) or the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The CAP has long advocated for reducing MIPS reporting burdens for dermatopathologists. In this regulation, the CMS is proposing key program changes that move the program forward but also introduce additional complexities; for example, the CMS will move forward with a new participation pathway called MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). The CMS proposed 7 specific MVPs that align with certain clinical topics; however, it will not implement these MVPs until the 2023 MIPS performance period.

In 2022, dermatopathologists who are eligible for MIPS will have to take action to avoid penalties that reduce future Medicare Part B payments for their services. Performance in MIPS in 2022 affects Medicare Part B payments in 2024 by an increase of 9% to a decrease of 9%.

In its proposed 2022 QPP regulations, the CMS proposed an increase of the performance threshold from 60 MIPS points to 75 MIPS points. It also proposed an increase of the exceptional Performance Threshold from 85 MIPS points to 89 MIPS points.

The CMS also proposed notable scoring changes for quality measures, including removing the 3-point floor for measures that can be scored against a benchmark. These measures would receive 1 to 10 points. Measures without a benchmark or that do not meet case requirements would earn 0 points, with an exception for small practices. The CMS also proposed removing bonus points for reporting additional outcomes and high-priority measures beyond the 1 that is required, as well as establishing a 5-point floor for the first 2 performance periods for new measures, which is in line with the CAP’s advocacy.

The Pathology Specialty Measure Set will remain the same as the 2021 set containing 6 quality measures, including the AADA-stewarded quality measure #440 (skin cancer: biopsy reporting time—pathologist to clinician). Although the CAP recognizes the importance of prompt turnaround of biopsy reports, it also is working with the CMS and the AADA to mitigate the operational challenges dermatopathologists encounter when using this measure. 

Due to advocacy from the CAP, the CMS included a CAP-proposed improvement activity on implementation of a laboratory preparedness plan to support continued or expanded patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic or another public health emergency. This plan should address how the laboratory would maintain or expand access to improve beneficiary health outcomes and reduce health care disparities.

The CAP has actively worked with the CMS to demonstrate the need for more appropriate and alternative measures and improvement activities so that pathologists can more fully participate in MIPS. 

Alternative Payment Models—For those dermatopathologists who practice in an APM, the proposed 2022 QPP makes minimal changes to the advanced APM track while adding transition time for accountable care organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program to report on certain quality measures and increasing flexibility related to the program’s quality performance standard.

Cures Act 2021: To Do No Harm

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) was signed into federal law in 2016. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) laid the groundwork for patients to have easier access to and control of their health information.⁵ The ONC’s final rule, which went into effect on April 5, 2021, requires that all providers make their office notes, laboratory results, and other diagnostic reports (including dermatopathology reports) available to patients as soon as the physician’s office receives an electronic copy. Penalty for noncompliance has not been determined.

There are information-blocking exceptions, but delaying access to a patient’s report so that a provider can review the result before the patient receives it is not considered an exception.⁶ The exceptions are situational and must be evaluated by the referring clinician or their employer. Documentation of the exception is critical. The specific facts and circumstances associated with your decision to use an exception will be important to include in your documentation. Information blocking necessary to prevent “harm” to a patient or another person requires a reasonable belief that the practice will substantially reduce the risk of harm.⁶

The AMA passed a resolution in June 2021 calling for changes to this rule to allow for a delay of pathology results, advocating to the Office for Civil Rights to revise the harm exception to include psychological distress.⁶ In August 2021, the AADA met with senior officials at the ONC also asking to revise its definition of harm, sharing examples of emotional strain that resulted from receiving results without clinical context.⁷ California enacted a law requiring a delay before a patient receives the result of a malignant diagnosis, giving the clinician time to contact the patient before they see their report.⁸

The Cures Act requirements are about patients accessing their health care information. Always consider what is best for the patient and ensure that your policies and procedures reflect this.⁵

Final Thoughts

It is important to learn and support advocacy priorities and efforts and to join forces to protect your practice. Physician advocacy is no longer an elective pursuit. We need to be involved and engaged through our medical societies to help patients, communities, and ourselves.

The proposed 2022 Medicare physician fee schedule and quality payment program (QPP) regulations were released on July 13, 2021.¹ Final regulations are expected to be released on or around November 1, 2021, but they may be delayed. Multiple national medical organizations, including the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the American Society of Dermatopathology, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA), and the American Medical Association (AMA) Physicians’ Grassroots Network all work together to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to influence these regulations. Stated advocacy priorities include protecting the value of dermatopathology services, mobilizing dermatopathologists for political action, ensuring dermatopathologists can participate in new payment models, strengthening the profession with advocacy on a state level, and conducting socioeconomic research. Is your practice aware and prepared to handle the changes coming in 2022?

2021 Medicare Cuts

The recent revisions and revaluations of the outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes² resulted in a considerable redistribution of Medicare dollars in 2021, negatively impacting dermatopathologists and other specialties and services due to budget neutrality required by law (Figure). Important steps were taken to mitigate the 2021 Medicare cuts for all non–office-based dermatopathology services (eg, pathology, surgical services, emergency department).^1,3 Direct engagement by the CAP, American Society of Dermatopathology, and AADA, along with the AMA Physicians’ Grassroots Network resulted in legislative action on December 27, 2020, which directed Medicare to make a 3.75% positive adjustment to the 2021 physician payments. Additionally, the CMS updated the 2021 physician conversion factor to $34.8931, a 3.3% reduction from the 2020 conversion factor rather than $32.41, or a 10.20% decrease. The 2% payment adjustment (sequestration) through December 21, 2021, also was suspended, and Congress and the Biden administration mandated delayed implementation of the inherent complexity add-on code for E/M services (G2211) until 2024.^1,3

Threat of Medicare Cuts in 2022

Based on dermatopathology utilization data, the overall impact on reimbursement for 2022 represents an approximately 5% decrease from 2021 dermatopathology payments (Table 1).^1,4 This represents a 3.75% cut from revaluation of E/M services, and a 1% cut due to changes in practice expense pricing. The estimated change in reimbursement for independent laboratories is a 6% decrease. Advocacy groups have been working to mitigate the 2022 cuts by engaging with Congress and urging them to act before these changes go into effect next year. Keep in mind that approximately half of all pathology Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have been targeted for evaluation by the CMS since 2006.^1,4

Coding for Clinical Pathology Consultation Services

The current clinical pathology consultation services (CPT codes 80500 and 80502) previously were identified as potentially misvalued for review by the AMA Relative Value Scale Update Committee’s (RUC’s) relativity assessment workgroup.⁴ Consequently, the CAP worked with the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel to delete codes 80500 and 80502, as well as to modernize and create the 4 new clinical pathology consultation codes: 80XX0, 80XX1, 80XX2, and 80XX3. Then the CAP worked with the RUC to develop physician work and practice expense values for the new clinical pathology consultation codes. Once the fee schedule is finalized, pathologists can begin using the new codes to bill these services in 2022 (Table 2).⁴

According to CPT, clinical pathology consultation services may be reported when the following criteria have been met: (1) the pathologist renders a clinical pathology consultation at the request of a physician or qualified health care professional at the same or another institution; (2) the pathology clinical consultation request relating to pathology and laboratory findings or other relevant clinical or diagnostic information requiring additional medical interpretative judgment is made; and (3) these codes are not reported in conjunction with codes 88321, 88323, and 88325.⁴

Proposed 2022 Medicare QPP Requirements

On July 13, 2021, the CMS also published its proposed 2022 QPP proposals that will take effect next year.⁴ According to the proposed regulation, nearly all dermatopathologists will be required to participate in Medicare’s QPP, either through advanced alternative payment models (APMs) or the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The CAP has long advocated for reducing MIPS reporting burdens for dermatopathologists. In this regulation, the CMS is proposing key program changes that move the program forward but also introduce additional complexities; for example, the CMS will move forward with a new participation pathway called MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). The CMS proposed 7 specific MVPs that align with certain clinical topics; however, it will not implement these MVPs until the 2023 MIPS performance period.

In 2022, dermatopathologists who are eligible for MIPS will have to take action to avoid penalties that reduce future Medicare Part B payments for their services. Performance in MIPS in 2022 affects Medicare Part B payments in 2024 by an increase of 9% to a decrease of 9%.

In its proposed 2022 QPP regulations, the CMS proposed an increase of the performance threshold from 60 MIPS points to 75 MIPS points. It also proposed an increase of the exceptional Performance Threshold from 85 MIPS points to 89 MIPS points.

The CMS also proposed notable scoring changes for quality measures, including removing the 3-point floor for measures that can be scored against a benchmark. These measures would receive 1 to 10 points. Measures without a benchmark or that do not meet case requirements would earn 0 points, with an exception for small practices. The CMS also proposed removing bonus points for reporting additional outcomes and high-priority measures beyond the 1 that is required, as well as establishing a 5-point floor for the first 2 performance periods for new measures, which is in line with the CAP’s advocacy.

The Pathology Specialty Measure Set will remain the same as the 2021 set containing 6 quality measures, including the AADA-stewarded quality measure #440 (skin cancer: biopsy reporting time—pathologist to clinician). Although the CAP recognizes the importance of prompt turnaround of biopsy reports, it also is working with the CMS and the AADA to mitigate the operational challenges dermatopathologists encounter when using this measure. 

Due to advocacy from the CAP, the CMS included a CAP-proposed improvement activity on implementation of a laboratory preparedness plan to support continued or expanded patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic or another public health emergency. This plan should address how the laboratory would maintain or expand access to improve beneficiary health outcomes and reduce health care disparities.

The CAP has actively worked with the CMS to demonstrate the need for more appropriate and alternative measures and improvement activities so that pathologists can more fully participate in MIPS. 

Alternative Payment Models—For those dermatopathologists who practice in an APM, the proposed 2022 QPP makes minimal changes to the advanced APM track while adding transition time for accountable care organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program to report on certain quality measures and increasing flexibility related to the program’s quality performance standard.

Cures Act 2021: To Do No Harm

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) was signed into federal law in 2016. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) laid the groundwork for patients to have easier access to and control of their health information.⁵ The ONC’s final rule, which went into effect on April 5, 2021, requires that all providers make their office notes, laboratory results, and other diagnostic reports (including dermatopathology reports) available to patients as soon as the physician’s office receives an electronic copy. Penalty for noncompliance has not been determined.

There are information-blocking exceptions, but delaying access to a patient’s report so that a provider can review the result before the patient receives it is not considered an exception.⁶ The exceptions are situational and must be evaluated by the referring clinician or their employer. Documentation of the exception is critical. The specific facts and circumstances associated with your decision to use an exception will be important to include in your documentation. Information blocking necessary to prevent “harm” to a patient or another person requires a reasonable belief that the practice will substantially reduce the risk of harm.⁶

The AMA passed a resolution in June 2021 calling for changes to this rule to allow for a delay of pathology results, advocating to the Office for Civil Rights to revise the harm exception to include psychological distress.⁶ In August 2021, the AADA met with senior officials at the ONC also asking to revise its definition of harm, sharing examples of emotional strain that resulted from receiving results without clinical context.⁷ California enacted a law requiring a delay before a patient receives the result of a malignant diagnosis, giving the clinician time to contact the patient before they see their report.⁸

The Cures Act requirements are about patients accessing their health care information. Always consider what is best for the patient and ensure that your policies and procedures reflect this.⁵

Final Thoughts

It is important to learn and support advocacy priorities and efforts and to join forces to protect your practice. Physician advocacy is no longer an elective pursuit. We need to be involved and engaged through our medical societies to help patients, communities, and ourselves.

The proposed 2022 Medicare physician fee schedule and quality payment program (QPP) regulations were released on July 13, 2021.¹ Final regulations are expected to be released on or around November 1, 2021, but they may be delayed. Multiple national medical organizations, including the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the American Society of Dermatopathology, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA), and the American Medical Association (AMA) Physicians’ Grassroots Network all work together to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to influence these regulations. Stated advocacy priorities include protecting the value of dermatopathology services, mobilizing dermatopathologists for political action, ensuring dermatopathologists can participate in new payment models, strengthening the profession with advocacy on a state level, and conducting socioeconomic research. Is your practice aware and prepared to handle the changes coming in 2022?

2021 Medicare Cuts

The recent revisions and revaluations of the outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes² resulted in a considerable redistribution of Medicare dollars in 2021, negatively impacting dermatopathologists and other specialties and services due to budget neutrality required by law (Figure). Important steps were taken to mitigate the 2021 Medicare cuts for all non–office-based dermatopathology services (eg, pathology, surgical services, emergency department).^1,3 Direct engagement by the CAP, American Society of Dermatopathology, and AADA, along with the AMA Physicians’ Grassroots Network resulted in legislative action on December 27, 2020, which directed Medicare to make a 3.75% positive adjustment to the 2021 physician payments. Additionally, the CMS updated the 2021 physician conversion factor to $34.8931, a 3.3% reduction from the 2020 conversion factor rather than $32.41, or a 10.20% decrease. The 2% payment adjustment (sequestration) through December 21, 2021, also was suspended, and Congress and the Biden administration mandated delayed implementation of the inherent complexity add-on code for E/M services (G2211) until 2024.^1,3

Threat of Medicare Cuts in 2022

Based on dermatopathology utilization data, the overall impact on reimbursement for 2022 represents an approximately 5% decrease from 2021 dermatopathology payments (Table 1).^1,4 This represents a 3.75% cut from revaluation of E/M services, and a 1% cut due to changes in practice expense pricing. The estimated change in reimbursement for independent laboratories is a 6% decrease. Advocacy groups have been working to mitigate the 2022 cuts by engaging with Congress and urging them to act before these changes go into effect next year. Keep in mind that approximately half of all pathology Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have been targeted for evaluation by the CMS since 2006.^1,4

Coding for Clinical Pathology Consultation Services

The current clinical pathology consultation services (CPT codes 80500 and 80502) previously were identified as potentially misvalued for review by the AMA Relative Value Scale Update Committee’s (RUC’s) relativity assessment workgroup.⁴ Consequently, the CAP worked with the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel to delete codes 80500 and 80502, as well as to modernize and create the 4 new clinical pathology consultation codes: 80XX0, 80XX1, 80XX2, and 80XX3. Then the CAP worked with the RUC to develop physician work and practice expense values for the new clinical pathology consultation codes. Once the fee schedule is finalized, pathologists can begin using the new codes to bill these services in 2022 (Table 2).⁴

According to CPT, clinical pathology consultation services may be reported when the following criteria have been met: (1) the pathologist renders a clinical pathology consultation at the request of a physician or qualified health care professional at the same or another institution; (2) the pathology clinical consultation request relating to pathology and laboratory findings or other relevant clinical or diagnostic information requiring additional medical interpretative judgment is made; and (3) these codes are not reported in conjunction with codes 88321, 88323, and 88325.⁴

Proposed 2022 Medicare QPP Requirements

On July 13, 2021, the CMS also published its proposed 2022 QPP proposals that will take effect next year.⁴ According to the proposed regulation, nearly all dermatopathologists will be required to participate in Medicare’s QPP, either through advanced alternative payment models (APMs) or the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The CAP has long advocated for reducing MIPS reporting burdens for dermatopathologists. In this regulation, the CMS is proposing key program changes that move the program forward but also introduce additional complexities; for example, the CMS will move forward with a new participation pathway called MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). The CMS proposed 7 specific MVPs that align with certain clinical topics; however, it will not implement these MVPs until the 2023 MIPS performance period.

In 2022, dermatopathologists who are eligible for MIPS will have to take action to avoid penalties that reduce future Medicare Part B payments for their services. Performance in MIPS in 2022 affects Medicare Part B payments in 2024 by an increase of 9% to a decrease of 9%.

In its proposed 2022 QPP regulations, the CMS proposed an increase of the performance threshold from 60 MIPS points to 75 MIPS points. It also proposed an increase of the exceptional Performance Threshold from 85 MIPS points to 89 MIPS points.

The CMS also proposed notable scoring changes for quality measures, including removing the 3-point floor for measures that can be scored against a benchmark. These measures would receive 1 to 10 points. Measures without a benchmark or that do not meet case requirements would earn 0 points, with an exception for small practices. The CMS also proposed removing bonus points for reporting additional outcomes and high-priority measures beyond the 1 that is required, as well as establishing a 5-point floor for the first 2 performance periods for new measures, which is in line with the CAP’s advocacy.

The Pathology Specialty Measure Set will remain the same as the 2021 set containing 6 quality measures, including the AADA-stewarded quality measure #440 (skin cancer: biopsy reporting time—pathologist to clinician). Although the CAP recognizes the importance of prompt turnaround of biopsy reports, it also is working with the CMS and the AADA to mitigate the operational challenges dermatopathologists encounter when using this measure. 

Due to advocacy from the CAP, the CMS included a CAP-proposed improvement activity on implementation of a laboratory preparedness plan to support continued or expanded patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic or another public health emergency. This plan should address how the laboratory would maintain or expand access to improve beneficiary health outcomes and reduce health care disparities.

The CAP has actively worked with the CMS to demonstrate the need for more appropriate and alternative measures and improvement activities so that pathologists can more fully participate in MIPS. 

Alternative Payment Models—For those dermatopathologists who practice in an APM, the proposed 2022 QPP makes minimal changes to the advanced APM track while adding transition time for accountable care organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program to report on certain quality measures and increasing flexibility related to the program’s quality performance standard.

Cures Act 2021: To Do No Harm

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) was signed into federal law in 2016. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) laid the groundwork for patients to have easier access to and control of their health information.⁵ The ONC’s final rule, which went into effect on April 5, 2021, requires that all providers make their office notes, laboratory results, and other diagnostic reports (including dermatopathology reports) available to patients as soon as the physician’s office receives an electronic copy. Penalty for noncompliance has not been determined.

There are information-blocking exceptions, but delaying access to a patient’s report so that a provider can review the result before the patient receives it is not considered an exception.⁶ The exceptions are situational and must be evaluated by the referring clinician or their employer. Documentation of the exception is critical. The specific facts and circumstances associated with your decision to use an exception will be important to include in your documentation. Information blocking necessary to prevent “harm” to a patient or another person requires a reasonable belief that the practice will substantially reduce the risk of harm.⁶

The AMA passed a resolution in June 2021 calling for changes to this rule to allow for a delay of pathology results, advocating to the Office for Civil Rights to revise the harm exception to include psychological distress.⁶ In August 2021, the AADA met with senior officials at the ONC also asking to revise its definition of harm, sharing examples of emotional strain that resulted from receiving results without clinical context.⁷ California enacted a law requiring a delay before a patient receives the result of a malignant diagnosis, giving the clinician time to contact the patient before they see their report.⁸

The Cures Act requirements are about patients accessing their health care information. Always consider what is best for the patient and ensure that your policies and procedures reflect this.⁵

Final Thoughts

It is important to learn and support advocacy priorities and efforts and to join forces to protect your practice. Physician advocacy is no longer an elective pursuit. We need to be involved and engaged through our medical societies to help patients, communities, and ourselves.

Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is an invasive flowering weed of the family Apiaceae that typically reaches a height of 13 feet, with thick stems; large green leaves; and umbrella-shaped, flat-topped, radial clusters (umbels) of small individual white flowers¹ (Figure 1). Because of the size and beauty of giant hogweed, it was widely planted in 19th century ornamental gardens in the United Kingdom and has since naturalized and spread throughout central Europe, Canada, and the United States.^1,2 The plant most commonly is found in shady areas near rivers and woodlands.¹

Due to the invasive nature of the giant hogweed, its prevalence continues to grow, its eradication remains difficult, and reports of phytophotodermatitis are increasing in number and distribution. In fact, there has been widespread media coverage of the dangers of giant hogweed in the United Kingdom since 2016¹ and in the United States in 2018 and 2019.^3-6

Transmission

Phytophotodermatitis is a type of nonimmunologic dermatitis caused by UV light reacting with a plant-based photosensitizing agent. In the case of giant hogweed, sap from the plant’s fruits, leaves, and stem contain furocoumarins or psoralens.⁷ Upon activation by UVA radiation, furan rings of these compounds create reactive oxygen species and intercalate with DNA pyrimidine bases, which results in cellular death, damage to successive skin layers, and reduced wound healing at the cellular level.⁸ This effect is intensified with increased percutaneous absorption of furocoumarin, which can result from high temperature, humidity, skin infection, lack of protective clothing, and moist conditions.⁹

The highest concentration of phototoxic compounds is found in giant hogweed from June through August,⁷ which, in combination with people increasing their outdoor activity in the summer, results in a greater prevalence and severity of H mantegazzianum phytophotodermatitis during summer months.

Presentation

Phytophotodermatitis caused by giant hogweed can range from burning and erythema to full-thickness chemical burns that require surgical debridement and skin grafting.⁸ After exposure to the offending agent, a harmful skin reaction can start within 15 minutes. After a latent period of approximately 24 hours, erythema, edema, and bullae can appear and generally peak by 72 hours.¹⁰ In addition to cutaneous injury, inhalation of giant hogweed traces can result in obstructive pulmonary symptoms. Eye contact can result in blindness.⁹

In addition to the rash caused by giant hogweed, a “weed-wacker dermatitis” or “strimmer rash” can be caused by the similar-appearing but smaller common hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium). Common hogweed is highly prevalent in the United States and often is confused with the larger giant hogweed because of tall stems and white, flat-topped flowers.

Management

Following contact with giant hogweed, a person should immediately avoid UV exposure and rinse the area with soap and water. UV radiation must be avoided for at least 48 hours. If erythema occurs, a topical steroid can be applied to the affected area; pain can be alleviated by a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁹

Further treatment might be required if bullous lesions are present. Small blisters can be punctured and drained; however, large blisters, extensive epidermal-dermal separation, and large areas of detached epidermis should simply be cleansed and dressed. An oral steroid also can be used to reduce inflammation in moderate and severe cases. Full-thickness injury might require surgical intervention.⁸

Clinical Case

A 27-year-old male landscaper presented to the emergency department with an increasingly painful blistering rash on the arms and neck of 1 day’s duration. He noticed bright red skin and blisters 18 to 24 hours after trimming what he identified as shoulder-high giant hogweed plants. Neither he nor his coworkers were wearing sunscreen or protective clothing as they cleared the plants for several hours. His coworkers developed similar rashes, but his rash was the most severe, requiring treatment in the emergency department.

Physical examination showed innumerable 2- to 10-mm, tense vesicles and bullae on a background of blanching erythema in a striking photodistribution along the neck (Figure 2) and arms (Figure 3). He had notable edema of both arms and several large 3- to 4-cm bullae on the ventral aspects of the forearms.

The patient was diagnosed with severe phytophotodermatitis secondary to contact with H mantegazzianum and was started on oral prednisone 70 mg daily (1 mg/kg/d), which was decreased by 10 mg every 3 days until the course of treatment was complete. He also was instructed to apply mupirocin ointment to open areas and petroleum jelly to intact skin. Additionally, he was advised to practice strict photoprotection for the near and distant future.

Within several days after treatment began, the phytophotodermatitis dramatically improved, with complete resolution in 1 week. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation resolved after several weeks.

Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is an invasive flowering weed of the family Apiaceae that typically reaches a height of 13 feet, with thick stems; large green leaves; and umbrella-shaped, flat-topped, radial clusters (umbels) of small individual white flowers¹ (Figure 1). Because of the size and beauty of giant hogweed, it was widely planted in 19th century ornamental gardens in the United Kingdom and has since naturalized and spread throughout central Europe, Canada, and the United States.^1,2 The plant most commonly is found in shady areas near rivers and woodlands.¹

Due to the invasive nature of the giant hogweed, its prevalence continues to grow, its eradication remains difficult, and reports of phytophotodermatitis are increasing in number and distribution. In fact, there has been widespread media coverage of the dangers of giant hogweed in the United Kingdom since 2016¹ and in the United States in 2018 and 2019.^3-6

Transmission

Phytophotodermatitis is a type of nonimmunologic dermatitis caused by UV light reacting with a plant-based photosensitizing agent. In the case of giant hogweed, sap from the plant’s fruits, leaves, and stem contain furocoumarins or psoralens.⁷ Upon activation by UVA radiation, furan rings of these compounds create reactive oxygen species and intercalate with DNA pyrimidine bases, which results in cellular death, damage to successive skin layers, and reduced wound healing at the cellular level.⁸ This effect is intensified with increased percutaneous absorption of furocoumarin, which can result from high temperature, humidity, skin infection, lack of protective clothing, and moist conditions.⁹

The highest concentration of phototoxic compounds is found in giant hogweed from June through August,⁷ which, in combination with people increasing their outdoor activity in the summer, results in a greater prevalence and severity of H mantegazzianum phytophotodermatitis during summer months.

Presentation

Phytophotodermatitis caused by giant hogweed can range from burning and erythema to full-thickness chemical burns that require surgical debridement and skin grafting.⁸ After exposure to the offending agent, a harmful skin reaction can start within 15 minutes. After a latent period of approximately 24 hours, erythema, edema, and bullae can appear and generally peak by 72 hours.¹⁰ In addition to cutaneous injury, inhalation of giant hogweed traces can result in obstructive pulmonary symptoms. Eye contact can result in blindness.⁹

In addition to the rash caused by giant hogweed, a “weed-wacker dermatitis” or “strimmer rash” can be caused by the similar-appearing but smaller common hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium). Common hogweed is highly prevalent in the United States and often is confused with the larger giant hogweed because of tall stems and white, flat-topped flowers.

Management

Following contact with giant hogweed, a person should immediately avoid UV exposure and rinse the area with soap and water. UV radiation must be avoided for at least 48 hours. If erythema occurs, a topical steroid can be applied to the affected area; pain can be alleviated by a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁹

Further treatment might be required if bullous lesions are present. Small blisters can be punctured and drained; however, large blisters, extensive epidermal-dermal separation, and large areas of detached epidermis should simply be cleansed and dressed. An oral steroid also can be used to reduce inflammation in moderate and severe cases. Full-thickness injury might require surgical intervention.⁸

Clinical Case

A 27-year-old male landscaper presented to the emergency department with an increasingly painful blistering rash on the arms and neck of 1 day’s duration. He noticed bright red skin and blisters 18 to 24 hours after trimming what he identified as shoulder-high giant hogweed plants. Neither he nor his coworkers were wearing sunscreen or protective clothing as they cleared the plants for several hours. His coworkers developed similar rashes, but his rash was the most severe, requiring treatment in the emergency department.

Physical examination showed innumerable 2- to 10-mm, tense vesicles and bullae on a background of blanching erythema in a striking photodistribution along the neck (Figure 2) and arms (Figure 3). He had notable edema of both arms and several large 3- to 4-cm bullae on the ventral aspects of the forearms.

The patient was diagnosed with severe phytophotodermatitis secondary to contact with H mantegazzianum and was started on oral prednisone 70 mg daily (1 mg/kg/d), which was decreased by 10 mg every 3 days until the course of treatment was complete. He also was instructed to apply mupirocin ointment to open areas and petroleum jelly to intact skin. Additionally, he was advised to practice strict photoprotection for the near and distant future.

Within several days after treatment began, the phytophotodermatitis dramatically improved, with complete resolution in 1 week. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation resolved after several weeks.

Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is an invasive flowering weed of the family Apiaceae that typically reaches a height of 13 feet, with thick stems; large green leaves; and umbrella-shaped, flat-topped, radial clusters (umbels) of small individual white flowers¹ (Figure 1). Because of the size and beauty of giant hogweed, it was widely planted in 19th century ornamental gardens in the United Kingdom and has since naturalized and spread throughout central Europe, Canada, and the United States.^1,2 The plant most commonly is found in shady areas near rivers and woodlands.¹

Due to the invasive nature of the giant hogweed, its prevalence continues to grow, its eradication remains difficult, and reports of phytophotodermatitis are increasing in number and distribution. In fact, there has been widespread media coverage of the dangers of giant hogweed in the United Kingdom since 2016¹ and in the United States in 2018 and 2019.^3-6

Transmission

Phytophotodermatitis is a type of nonimmunologic dermatitis caused by UV light reacting with a plant-based photosensitizing agent. In the case of giant hogweed, sap from the plant’s fruits, leaves, and stem contain furocoumarins or psoralens.⁷ Upon activation by UVA radiation, furan rings of these compounds create reactive oxygen species and intercalate with DNA pyrimidine bases, which results in cellular death, damage to successive skin layers, and reduced wound healing at the cellular level.⁸ This effect is intensified with increased percutaneous absorption of furocoumarin, which can result from high temperature, humidity, skin infection, lack of protective clothing, and moist conditions.⁹

The highest concentration of phototoxic compounds is found in giant hogweed from June through August,⁷ which, in combination with people increasing their outdoor activity in the summer, results in a greater prevalence and severity of H mantegazzianum phytophotodermatitis during summer months.

Presentation

Phytophotodermatitis caused by giant hogweed can range from burning and erythema to full-thickness chemical burns that require surgical debridement and skin grafting.⁸ After exposure to the offending agent, a harmful skin reaction can start within 15 minutes. After a latent period of approximately 24 hours, erythema, edema, and bullae can appear and generally peak by 72 hours.¹⁰ In addition to cutaneous injury, inhalation of giant hogweed traces can result in obstructive pulmonary symptoms. Eye contact can result in blindness.⁹

In addition to the rash caused by giant hogweed, a “weed-wacker dermatitis” or “strimmer rash” can be caused by the similar-appearing but smaller common hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium). Common hogweed is highly prevalent in the United States and often is confused with the larger giant hogweed because of tall stems and white, flat-topped flowers.

Management

Following contact with giant hogweed, a person should immediately avoid UV exposure and rinse the area with soap and water. UV radiation must be avoided for at least 48 hours. If erythema occurs, a topical steroid can be applied to the affected area; pain can be alleviated by a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁹

Further treatment might be required if bullous lesions are present. Small blisters can be punctured and drained; however, large blisters, extensive epidermal-dermal separation, and large areas of detached epidermis should simply be cleansed and dressed. An oral steroid also can be used to reduce inflammation in moderate and severe cases. Full-thickness injury might require surgical intervention.⁸

Clinical Case

A 27-year-old male landscaper presented to the emergency department with an increasingly painful blistering rash on the arms and neck of 1 day’s duration. He noticed bright red skin and blisters 18 to 24 hours after trimming what he identified as shoulder-high giant hogweed plants. Neither he nor his coworkers were wearing sunscreen or protective clothing as they cleared the plants for several hours. His coworkers developed similar rashes, but his rash was the most severe, requiring treatment in the emergency department.

Physical examination showed innumerable 2- to 10-mm, tense vesicles and bullae on a background of blanching erythema in a striking photodistribution along the neck (Figure 2) and arms (Figure 3). He had notable edema of both arms and several large 3- to 4-cm bullae on the ventral aspects of the forearms.

The patient was diagnosed with severe phytophotodermatitis secondary to contact with H mantegazzianum and was started on oral prednisone 70 mg daily (1 mg/kg/d), which was decreased by 10 mg every 3 days until the course of treatment was complete. He also was instructed to apply mupirocin ointment to open areas and petroleum jelly to intact skin. Additionally, he was advised to practice strict photoprotection for the near and distant future.

Within several days after treatment began, the phytophotodermatitis dramatically improved, with complete resolution in 1 week. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation resolved after several weeks.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory, androgen gland disorder characterized by recurrent rupture of the hair follicles with a vigorous inflammatory response. This response results in abscess formation and development of draining sinus tracts and hypertrophic fibrous scars.^1,2 Pain, discomfort, and odorous discharge from the recalcitrant lesions have a profound impact on patient quality of life.^3,4

The morbidity and disease burden associated with HS are particularly underestimated, as patients frequently report debilitating pain that often is overlooked.^5,6 Additionally, the quality and intensity of perceived pain are compounded by frequently associated depression and anxiety.^7-9 Pain has been reported by patients with HS to be the highest cause of morbidity, despite the disfiguring nature of the disease and its associated psychosocial distress.^7,10 Nonetheless, HS lacks an accepted pain management algorithm similar to those that have been developed for the treatment of other acute or chronic pain disorders, such as back pain and sickle cell disease.^4,11-13

Given the lack of formal studies regarding pain management in patients with HS, clinicians are limited to general pain guidelines, expert opinion, small trials, and patient preference.³ Furthermore, effective pain management in HS necessitates the treatment of both chronic pain affecting daily function and acute pain present during disease flares, surgical interventions, and dressing changes.³ The result is a wide array of strategies used for HS-associated pain.^3,4

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Hidradenitis suppurativa historically has been an overlooked and underdiagnosed disease, which limits epidemiology data.⁵ Current estimates are that HS affects approximately 1% of the general population; however, prevalence rates range from 0.03% to 4.1%.^14-16

The exact etiology of HS remains unclear, but it is thought that genetic factors, immune dysregulation, and environmental/behavioral influences all contribute to its pathophysiology.^1,17 Up to 40% of patients with HS report a positive family history of the disease.^18-20 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with other inflammatory disease states, such as inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthropathies, and pyoderma gangrenosum.^16,21,22

It is thought that HS is the result of some defect in keratin clearance that leads to follicular hyperkeratinization and occlusion.¹ Resultant rupture of pilosebaceous units and spillage of contents (including keratin and bacteria) into the surrounding dermis triggers a vigorous inflammatory response. Sinus tracts and fistulas become the targets of bacterial colonization, biofilm formation, and secondary infection. The result is suppuration and extension of the lesions as well as sustained chronic inflammation.^23,24

Although the etiology of HS is complex, several modifiable risk factors for the disease have been identified, most prominently cigarette smoking and obesity. Approximately 70% of patients with HS smoke cigarettes.^2,15,25,26 Obesity has a well-known association with HS, and it is possible that weight reduction lowers disease severity.^27-30

Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis

Establishing a diagnosis of HS necessitates recognition of disease morphology, topography, and chronicity. Hidradenitis suppurativa most commonly occurs in the axillae, inguinal and anogenital region, perineal region, and inframammary region.^5,31 A typical history involves a prolonged disease course with recurrent lesions and intermittent periods of improvement or remission. Primary lesions are deep, inflamed, painful, and sterile. Ultimately, these lesions rupture and track subcutaneously.^15,25 Intercommunicating sinus tracts form from multiple recurrent nodules in close proximity and may ultimately lead to fibrotic scarring and local architectural distortion.³² The Hurley staging system helps to guide treatment interventions based on disease severity. Approach to pain management is discussed below.

Pain Management in HS: General Principles

Pain management is complex for clinicians, as there are limited studies from which to draw treatment recommendations. Incomplete understanding of the etiology and pathophysiology of the disease contributes to the lack of established management guidelines.

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms hidradenitis, suppurativa, pain, and management revealed 61 different results dating back to 1980, 52 of which had been published in the last 5 years. When the word acute was added to the search, there were only 6 results identified. These results clearly reflect a better understanding of HS-mediated pain as well as clinical unmet needs and evolving strategies in pain management therapeutics. However, many of these studies reflect therapies focused on the mediation or modulation of HS pathogenesis rather than potential pain management therapies.

In addition, the heterogenous nature of the pain experience in HS poses a challenge for clinicians. Patients may experience multiple pain types concurrently, including inflammatory, noninflammatory, nociceptive, neuropathic, and ischemic, as well as pain related to arthritis.^3,33,34 Pain perception is further complicated by the observation that patients with HS have high rates of psychiatric comorbidities such as depression and anxiety, both of which profoundly alter perception of both the strength and quality of pain.^7,8,22,35 A suggested algorithm for treatment of pain in HS is described in the eTable.³⁶

Chronicity is a hallmark of HS. Patients experience a prolonged disease course involving acute painful exacerbations superimposed on chronic pain that affects all aspects of daily life. Changes in self-perception, daily living activities, mood state, physical functioning, and physical comfort frequently are reported to have a major impact on quality of life.^1,3,37

In 2018, Thorlacius et al³⁸ created a multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set of domains detailing what to measure in clinical trials for HS. The authors hoped that the routine adoption of these core domains would promote the collection of consistent and relevant information, bolster the strength of evidence synthesis, and minimize the risk for outcome reporting bias among studies.³⁸ It is important to ascertain the patient’s description of his/her pain to distinguish between stimulus-dependent nociceptive pain vs spontaneous neuropathic pain.^3,7,10 The most common pain descriptors used by patients are “shooting,” “itchy,” “blinding,” “cutting,” and “exhausting.”¹⁰ In addition to obtaining descriptive factors, it is important for the clinician to obtain information on the timing of the pain, whether or not the pain is relieved with spontaneous or surgical drainage, and if the patient is experiencing chronic background pain secondary to scarring or skin contraction.³ With the routine utilization of a consistent set of core domains, advances in our understanding of the different elements of HS pain, and increased provider awareness of the disease, the future of pain management in patients with HS seems promising.

Acute and Perioperative Pain Management

Acute Pain Management—The pain in HS can range from mild to excruciating.^3,7 The difference between acute and chronic pain in this condition may be hard to delineate, as patients may have intense acute flares on top of a baseline level of chronic pain.^3,7,14 These factors, in combination with various pain types of differing etiologies, make the treatment of HS-associated pain a therapeutic challenge.

The first-line treatments for acute pain in HS are oral acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and topical analgesics.³ These treatment modalities are especially helpful for nociceptive pain, which often is described as having an aching or tender quality.³ Topical treatment for acute pain episodes includes diclofenac gel and liposomal lidocaine cream.³⁹ Topical lidocaine in particular has the benefit of being rapid acting, and its effect can last 1 to 2 hours. Ketamine has been anecdotally used as a topical treatment. Treatment options for neuropathic pain include topical amitriptyline, gabapentin, and pregabalin.³⁹ Dressings and ice packs may be used in cases of mild acute pain, depending on patient preference.³

First-line therapies may not provide adequate pain control in many patients.^3,40,41 Should the first-line treatments fail, oral opiates can be considered as a treatment option, especially if the patient has a history of recurrent pain unresponsive to milder methods of pain control.^3,40,41 However, prudence should be exercised, as patients with HS have a higher risk for opioid abuse, and referral to a pain specialist is advisable.⁴⁰ Generally, use of opioids should be limited to the smallest period of time possible.^40,41 Codeine can be used as a first opioid option, with hydromorphone available as an alternative.⁴¹

Pain caused by inflamed abscesses and nodules can be treated with either intralesional corticosteroids or incision and drainage. Intralesional triamcinolone has been found to cause substantial pain relief within 1 day of injection in patients with HS.^3,42

Prompt discussion about the remitting course of HS will prepare patients for flares. Although the therapies discussed here aim to reduce the clinical severity and inflammation associated with HS, achieving pain-free remission can be challenging. Barriers to developing a long-term treatment regimen include intolerable side effects or simply nonresponsive disease.^36,43

Management of Perioperative Pain—Medical treatment of HS often yields only transient or mild results. Hurley stage II or III lesions typically require surgical removal of affected tissues.^32,44-46 Surgery may dramatically reduce the primary disease burden and provide substantial pain relief.^3,4,44 Complete resection of the affected tissue by wide excision is the most common surgical procedure used.^46-48 However, various tissue-sparing techniques, such as skin-tissue-sparing excision with electrosurgical peeling, also have been utilized. Tissue-sparing surgical techniques may lead to shorter healing times and less postoperative pain.⁴⁸

There currently is little guidance available on the perioperative management of pain as it relates to surgical procedures for HS. The pain experienced from surgery varies based on the area and location of affected tissue; extent of disease; surgical technique used; and whether primary closure, closure by secondary intention, or skin grafting is utilized.^47,49 Medical treatment aimed at reducing inflammation prior to surgical intervention may improve postoperative pain and complications.

The use of general vs local anesthesia during surgery depends on the extent of the disease and the amount of tissue being removed; however, the use of local anesthesia has been associated with a higher recurrence of disease, possibly owing to less aggressive tissue removal.⁵⁰ Intraoperatively, the injection of 0.5% bupivacaine around the wound edges may lead to less postoperative pain.^3,48 Postoperative pain usually is managed with acetaminophen and NSAIDs.⁴⁸ In cases of severe postoperative pain, short- and long-acting opioid oxycodone preparations may be used. The combination of diclofenac and tramadol also has been used postoperatively.³ Patients who do not undergo extensive surgery often can leave the hospital the same day.

Effective strategies for mitigating HS-associated pain must address the chronic pain component of the disease. Long-term management involves lifestyle modifications and pharmacologic agents.

Chronic Pain Management

Although HS is not a curable disease, there are treatments available to minimize symptoms. Long-term management of HS is essential to minimize the effects of chronic pain and physical scarring associated with inflammation.³¹ In one study from the French Society of Dermatology, pain reported by patients with HS was directly associated with severity and duration of disease, emotional symptoms, and reduced functionality.⁵¹ For these reasons, many treatments for HS target reducing clinical severity and achieving remission, often defined as more than 6 months without any recurrence of lesions.⁵² In addition to lifestyle management, therapies available to manage HS include topical and systemic medications as well as procedures such as surgical excision.^36,43,52,53

Lifestyle Modifications

Regardless of the severity of HS, all patients may benefit from basic education on the pathogenesis of the disease.³⁶ The associations with smoking and obesity have been well documented, and treatment of these comorbid conditions is indicated.^36,43,52 For example, in relation to obesity, the use of metformin is very well tolerated and seems to positively impact HS symptoms.⁴³ Several studies have suggested that weight reduction lowers disease severity.^28-30 Patients should be counseled on the importance of smoking cessation and weight loss.

Finally, the emotional impact of HS is not to be discounted, both the physical and social discomfort as well as the chronicity of the disease and frustration with treatment.⁵¹ Chronic pain has been associated with increased rates of depression, and 43% of patients with HS specifically have been diagnosed with major depressive disorder.⁷ For these reasons, clinician guidance, social support, and websites can improve patient understanding of the disease, adherence to treatment, and comorbid anxiety and depression.⁵²

Topical Therapy

Topical therapy generally is limited to mild disease and is geared at decreasing inflammation or superimposed infection.^36,52 Some of the earliest therapies used were topical antibiotics.⁴³ Topical clindamycin has been shown to be as effective as oral tetracyclines in reducing the number of abscesses, but neither treatment substantially reduces pain associated with smaller nodules.⁵⁴ Intralesional corticosteroids such as triamcinolone acetonide have been shown to decrease both patient-reported pain and physician-assessed severity within 1 to 7 days.⁴² Routine injection, however, is not a feasible means of long-term treatment both because of inconvenience and the potential adverse effects of corticosteroids.^36,52 Both topical clindamycin and intralesional steroids are helpful in reducing inflammation prior to planned surgical intervention.^36,52,53

Newer topical therapies include resorcinol peels and combination antimicrobials, such as 2% triclosan and oral zinc gluconate.^52,53 Data surrounding the use of resorcinol in mild to moderate HS are promising and have shown decreased severity of both new and long-standing nodules. Fifteen-percent resorcinol peels are helpful tools that allow for self-administration by patients during exacerbations to decrease pain and flare duration.^55,56 In a 2016 clinical trial, a combination of oral zinc gluconate with topical triclosan was shown to reduce flare-ups and nodules in mild HS.⁵⁷ Oral zinc alone may have anti-inflammatory properties and generally is well tolerated.^43,53 Topical therapies have a role in reducing HS-associated pain but often are limited to milder disease.

Systemic Agents

Several therapeutic options exist for the treatment of HS; however, a detailed description of their mechanisms and efficacies is beyond the scope of this review, which is focused on pain. Briefly, these systemic agents include antibiotics, retinoids, corticosteroids, antiandrogens, and biologics.^43,52,53

Treatment with antibiotics such as tetracyclines or a combination of clindamycin plus rifampin has been shown to produce complete remission in 60% to 80% of users; however, this treatment requires more than 6 months of antibiotic therapy, which can be difficult to tolerate.^52,53,58 Relapse is common after antibiotic cessation.^2,43,52 Antibiotics have demonstrated efficacy during acute flares and in reducing inflammatory activity prior to surgery.⁵²

Retinoids have been utilized in the treatment of HS because of their action on sebaceous glands and hair follicles.^43,53 Acitretin has been shown to be the most effective oral retinoid available in the United States.⁴³ Unfortunately, many of the studies investigating the use of retinoids for treatment of HS are limited by small sample size.^36,43,52

Because HS is predominantly an inflammatory condition, immunosuppressants have been adapted to manage patients when antibiotics and topicals have failed. Systemic steroids rarely are used for long-term therapy because of the severe side effects and are preferred only for acute management.^36,52 Cyclosporine and dapsone have demonstrated efficacy in treating moderate to severe HS, whereas methotrexate and colchicine have shown little efficacy.⁵² Both cyclosporine and dapsone are difficult to tolerate, require laboratory monitoring, and lead to only conservative improvement rather than remission in most patients.⁴³

Immune dysregulation in HS involves elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), which is a key mediator of inflammation and a stimulator of other inflammatory cytokines.^59,60 The first approved biologic treatment of HS was adalimumab, a TNF-α inhibitor, which showed a 50% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule count in 60% of patients with moderate to severe HS.^61-63 Of course, TNF-α inhibitor therapy is not without risks, specifically those of infection.^43,53,61,62 Maintenance therapy may be required if patients relapse.^53,61

Various interleukin inhibitors also have emerged as potential therapies for HS, such as ustekinumab and anakinra.^36,64 Both have been subject to numerous small case trials that have reported improvements in clinical severity and pain; however, both drugs were associated with a fair number of nonresponders.^36,64,65

Surgical Procedures

Although HS lesions may regress on their own in a matter of weeks, surgical drainage allows an acute alleviation of the severe burning pain associated with HS flares.^36,52,53 Because of improved understanding of the disease pathophysiology, recent therapies targeting the hair follicle have been developed and have shown promising results. These therapies include laser- and light-based procedures. Long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser therapy reduces the number of hair follicles and sebaceous glands and has been effective for Hurley stage I or II disease.^{36,43,52,53,66} Photodynamic therapy offers a less-invasive option compared to surgery and laser therapy.^52,53,66 Both Nd:YAG and CO₂ laser therapy offer low recurrence rates (<30%) due to destruction of the apocrine unit.^43,53 Photodynamic therapy for mild disease offers a less-invasive option compared to surgery and laser therapy.⁵³ There is a need for larger randomized controlled trials involving laser, light, and CO₂ therapies.⁶⁶

Conclusion

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a debilitating condition with an underestimated disease burden. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is not completely understood, it is evident that pain is a major cause of morbidity. Patients experience a multitude of acute and chronic pain types: inflammatory, noninflammatory, nociceptive, neuropathic, and ischemic. Pain perception and quality of life are further impacted by psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety, both of which are common comorbidities in patients with HS. Several pharmacologic agents have been used to treat HS-associated pain with mixed results. First-line treatment of acute pain episodes includes oral acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and topical analgesics. Management of chronic pain includes utilization of topical agents, systemic agents, and biologics, as well as addressing lifestyle (eg, obesity, smoking status) and psychiatric comorbidities. Although these therapies have roles in HS pain management, the most effective pain remedies developed thus far are limited to surgery and TNF-α inhibitors. Optimization of pain control in patients with HS requires multidisciplinary collaboration among dermatologists, pain specialists, psychiatrists, and other members of the health care team. Further large-scale studies are needed to create an evidence-based treatment algorithm for the management of pain in HS.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory, androgen gland disorder characterized by recurrent rupture of the hair follicles with a vigorous inflammatory response. This response results in abscess formation and development of draining sinus tracts and hypertrophic fibrous scars.^1,2 Pain, discomfort, and odorous discharge from the recalcitrant lesions have a profound impact on patient quality of life.^3,4

The morbidity and disease burden associated with HS are particularly underestimated, as patients frequently report debilitating pain that often is overlooked.^5,6 Additionally, the quality and intensity of perceived pain are compounded by frequently associated depression and anxiety.^7-9 Pain has been reported by patients with HS to be the highest cause of morbidity, despite the disfiguring nature of the disease and its associated psychosocial distress.^7,10 Nonetheless, HS lacks an accepted pain management algorithm similar to those that have been developed for the treatment of other acute or chronic pain disorders, such as back pain and sickle cell disease.^4,11-13

Given the lack of formal studies regarding pain management in patients with HS, clinicians are limited to general pain guidelines, expert opinion, small trials, and patient preference.³ Furthermore, effective pain management in HS necessitates the treatment of both chronic pain affecting daily function and acute pain present during disease flares, surgical interventions, and dressing changes.³ The result is a wide array of strategies used for HS-associated pain.^3,4

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Hidradenitis suppurativa historically has been an overlooked and underdiagnosed disease, which limits epidemiology data.⁵ Current estimates are that HS affects approximately 1% of the general population; however, prevalence rates range from 0.03% to 4.1%.^14-16

The exact etiology of HS remains unclear, but it is thought that genetic factors, immune dysregulation, and environmental/behavioral influences all contribute to its pathophysiology.^1,17 Up to 40% of patients with HS report a positive family history of the disease.^18-20 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with other inflammatory disease states, such as inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthropathies, and pyoderma gangrenosum.^16,21,22

It is thought that HS is the result of some defect in keratin clearance that leads to follicular hyperkeratinization and occlusion.¹ Resultant rupture of pilosebaceous units and spillage of contents (including keratin and bacteria) into the surrounding dermis triggers a vigorous inflammatory response. Sinus tracts and fistulas become the targets of bacterial colonization, biofilm formation, and secondary infection. The result is suppuration and extension of the lesions as well as sustained chronic inflammation.^23,24

Although the etiology of HS is complex, several modifiable risk factors for the disease have been identified, most prominently cigarette smoking and obesity. Approximately 70% of patients with HS smoke cigarettes.^2,15,25,26 Obesity has a well-known association with HS, and it is possible that weight reduction lowers disease severity.^27-30

Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis

Establishing a diagnosis of HS necessitates recognition of disease morphology, topography, and chronicity. Hidradenitis suppurativa most commonly occurs in the axillae, inguinal and anogenital region, perineal region, and inframammary region.^5,31 A typical history involves a prolonged disease course with recurrent lesions and intermittent periods of improvement or remission. Primary lesions are deep, inflamed, painful, and sterile. Ultimately, these lesions rupture and track subcutaneously.^15,25 Intercommunicating sinus tracts form from multiple recurrent nodules in close proximity and may ultimately lead to fibrotic scarring and local architectural distortion.³² The Hurley staging system helps to guide treatment interventions based on disease severity. Approach to pain management is discussed below.

Pain Management in HS: General Principles

Pain management is complex for clinicians, as there are limited studies from which to draw treatment recommendations. Incomplete understanding of the etiology and pathophysiology of the disease contributes to the lack of established management guidelines.

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms hidradenitis, suppurativa, pain, and management revealed 61 different results dating back to 1980, 52 of which had been published in the last 5 years. When the word acute was added to the search, there were only 6 results identified. These results clearly reflect a better understanding of HS-mediated pain as well as clinical unmet needs and evolving strategies in pain management therapeutics. However, many of these studies reflect therapies focused on the mediation or modulation of HS pathogenesis rather than potential pain management therapies.

In addition, the heterogenous nature of the pain experience in HS poses a challenge for clinicians. Patients may experience multiple pain types concurrently, including inflammatory, noninflammatory, nociceptive, neuropathic, and ischemic, as well as pain related to arthritis.^3,33,34 Pain perception is further complicated by the observation that patients with HS have high rates of psychiatric comorbidities such as depression and anxiety, both of which profoundly alter perception of both the strength and quality of pain.^7,8,22,35 A suggested algorithm for treatment of pain in HS is described in the eTable.³⁶

Chronicity is a hallmark of HS. Patients experience a prolonged disease course involving acute painful exacerbations superimposed on chronic pain that affects all aspects of daily life. Changes in self-perception, daily living activities, mood state, physical functioning, and physical comfort frequently are reported to have a major impact on quality of life.^1,3,37

In 2018, Thorlacius et al³⁸ created a multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set of domains detailing what to measure in clinical trials for HS. The authors hoped that the routine adoption of these core domains would promote the collection of consistent and relevant information, bolster the strength of evidence synthesis, and minimize the risk for outcome reporting bias among studies.³⁸ It is important to ascertain the patient’s description of his/her pain to distinguish between stimulus-dependent nociceptive pain vs spontaneous neuropathic pain.^3,7,10 The most common pain descriptors used by patients are “shooting,” “itchy,” “blinding,” “cutting,” and “exhausting.”¹⁰ In addition to obtaining descriptive factors, it is important for the clinician to obtain information on the timing of the pain, whether or not the pain is relieved with spontaneous or surgical drainage, and if the patient is experiencing chronic background pain secondary to scarring or skin contraction.³ With the routine utilization of a consistent set of core domains, advances in our understanding of the different elements of HS pain, and increased provider awareness of the disease, the future of pain management in patients with HS seems promising.

Acute and Perioperative Pain Management

Acute Pain Management—The pain in HS can range from mild to excruciating.^3,7 The difference between acute and chronic pain in this condition may be hard to delineate, as patients may have intense acute flares on top of a baseline level of chronic pain.^3,7,14 These factors, in combination with various pain types of differing etiologies, make the treatment of HS-associated pain a therapeutic challenge.

The first-line treatments for acute pain in HS are oral acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and topical analgesics.³ These treatment modalities are especially helpful for nociceptive pain, which often is described as having an aching or tender quality.³ Topical treatment for acute pain episodes includes diclofenac gel and liposomal lidocaine cream.³⁹ Topical lidocaine in particular has the benefit of being rapid acting, and its effect can last 1 to 2 hours. Ketamine has been anecdotally used as a topical treatment. Treatment options for neuropathic pain include topical amitriptyline, gabapentin, and pregabalin.³⁹ Dressings and ice packs may be used in cases of mild acute pain, depending on patient preference.³

First-line therapies may not provide adequate pain control in many patients.^3,40,41 Should the first-line treatments fail, oral opiates can be considered as a treatment option, especially if the patient has a history of recurrent pain unresponsive to milder methods of pain control.^3,40,41 However, prudence should be exercised, as patients with HS have a higher risk for opioid abuse, and referral to a pain specialist is advisable.⁴⁰ Generally, use of opioids should be limited to the smallest period of time possible.^40,41 Codeine can be used as a first opioid option, with hydromorphone available as an alternative.⁴¹

Pain caused by inflamed abscesses and nodules can be treated with either intralesional corticosteroids or incision and drainage. Intralesional triamcinolone has been found to cause substantial pain relief within 1 day of injection in patients with HS.^3,42

Prompt discussion about the remitting course of HS will prepare patients for flares. Although the therapies discussed here aim to reduce the clinical severity and inflammation associated with HS, achieving pain-free remission can be challenging. Barriers to developing a long-term treatment regimen include intolerable side effects or simply nonresponsive disease.^36,43

Management of Perioperative Pain—Medical treatment of HS often yields only transient or mild results. Hurley stage II or III lesions typically require surgical removal of affected tissues.^32,44-46 Surgery may dramatically reduce the primary disease burden and provide substantial pain relief.^3,4,44 Complete resection of the affected tissue by wide excision is the most common surgical procedure used.^46-48 However, various tissue-sparing techniques, such as skin-tissue-sparing excision with electrosurgical peeling, also have been utilized. Tissue-sparing surgical techniques may lead to shorter healing times and less postoperative pain.⁴⁸

There currently is little guidance available on the perioperative management of pain as it relates to surgical procedures for HS. The pain experienced from surgery varies based on the area and location of affected tissue; extent of disease; surgical technique used; and whether primary closure, closure by secondary intention, or skin grafting is utilized.^47,49 Medical treatment aimed at reducing inflammation prior to surgical intervention may improve postoperative pain and complications.

The use of general vs local anesthesia during surgery depends on the extent of the disease and the amount of tissue being removed; however, the use of local anesthesia has been associated with a higher recurrence of disease, possibly owing to less aggressive tissue removal.⁵⁰ Intraoperatively, the injection of 0.5% bupivacaine around the wound edges may lead to less postoperative pain.^3,48 Postoperative pain usually is managed with acetaminophen and NSAIDs.⁴⁸ In cases of severe postoperative pain, short- and long-acting opioid oxycodone preparations may be used. The combination of diclofenac and tramadol also has been used postoperatively.³ Patients who do not undergo extensive surgery often can leave the hospital the same day.

Effective strategies for mitigating HS-associated pain must address the chronic pain component of the disease. Long-term management involves lifestyle modifications and pharmacologic agents.

Chronic Pain Management

Although HS is not a curable disease, there are treatments available to minimize symptoms. Long-term management of HS is essential to minimize the effects of chronic pain and physical scarring associated with inflammation.³¹ In one study from the French Society of Dermatology, pain reported by patients with HS was directly associated with severity and duration of disease, emotional symptoms, and reduced functionality.⁵¹ For these reasons, many treatments for HS target reducing clinical severity and achieving remission, often defined as more than 6 months without any recurrence of lesions.⁵² In addition to lifestyle management, therapies available to manage HS include topical and systemic medications as well as procedures such as surgical excision.^36,43,52,53

Lifestyle Modifications

Regardless of the severity of HS, all patients may benefit from basic education on the pathogenesis of the disease.³⁶ The associations with smoking and obesity have been well documented, and treatment of these comorbid conditions is indicated.^36,43,52 For example, in relation to obesity, the use of metformin is very well tolerated and seems to positively impact HS symptoms.⁴³ Several studies have suggested that weight reduction lowers disease severity.^28-30 Patients should be counseled on the importance of smoking cessation and weight loss.

Finally, the emotional impact of HS is not to be discounted, both the physical and social discomfort as well as the chronicity of the disease and frustration with treatment.⁵¹ Chronic pain has been associated with increased rates of depression, and 43% of patients with HS specifically have been diagnosed with major depressive disorder.⁷ For these reasons, clinician guidance, social support, and websites can improve patient understanding of the disease, adherence to treatment, and comorbid anxiety and depression.⁵²

Topical Therapy

Topical therapy generally is limited to mild disease and is geared at decreasing inflammation or superimposed infection.^36,52 Some of the earliest therapies used were topical antibiotics.⁴³ Topical clindamycin has been shown to be as effective as oral tetracyclines in reducing the number of abscesses, but neither treatment substantially reduces pain associated with smaller nodules.⁵⁴ Intralesional corticosteroids such as triamcinolone acetonide have been shown to decrease both patient-reported pain and physician-assessed severity within 1 to 7 days.⁴² Routine injection, however, is not a feasible means of long-term treatment both because of inconvenience and the potential adverse effects of corticosteroids.^36,52 Both topical clindamycin and intralesional steroids are helpful in reducing inflammation prior to planned surgical intervention.^36,52,53

Newer topical therapies include resorcinol peels and combination antimicrobials, such as 2% triclosan and oral zinc gluconate.^52,53 Data surrounding the use of resorcinol in mild to moderate HS are promising and have shown decreased severity of both new and long-standing nodules. Fifteen-percent resorcinol peels are helpful tools that allow for self-administration by patients during exacerbations to decrease pain and flare duration.^55,56 In a 2016 clinical trial, a combination of oral zinc gluconate with topical triclosan was shown to reduce flare-ups and nodules in mild HS.⁵⁷ Oral zinc alone may have anti-inflammatory properties and generally is well tolerated.^43,53 Topical therapies have a role in reducing HS-associated pain but often are limited to milder disease.

Systemic Agents

Several therapeutic options exist for the treatment of HS; however, a detailed description of their mechanisms and efficacies is beyond the scope of this review, which is focused on pain. Briefly, these systemic agents include antibiotics, retinoids, corticosteroids, antiandrogens, and biologics.^43,52,53

Treatment with antibiotics such as tetracyclines or a combination of clindamycin plus rifampin has been shown to produce complete remission in 60% to 80% of users; however, this treatment requires more than 6 months of antibiotic therapy, which can be difficult to tolerate.^52,53,58 Relapse is common after antibiotic cessation.^2,43,52 Antibiotics have demonstrated efficacy during acute flares and in reducing inflammatory activity prior to surgery.⁵²

Retinoids have been utilized in the treatment of HS because of their action on sebaceous glands and hair follicles.^43,53 Acitretin has been shown to be the most effective oral retinoid available in the United States.⁴³ Unfortunately, many of the studies investigating the use of retinoids for treatment of HS are limited by small sample size.^36,43,52

Because HS is predominantly an inflammatory condition, immunosuppressants have been adapted to manage patients when antibiotics and topicals have failed. Systemic steroids rarely are used for long-term therapy because of the severe side effects and are preferred only for acute management.^36,52 Cyclosporine and dapsone have demonstrated efficacy in treating moderate to severe HS, whereas methotrexate and colchicine have shown little efficacy.⁵² Both cyclosporine and dapsone are difficult to tolerate, require laboratory monitoring, and lead to only conservative improvement rather than remission in most patients.⁴³

Immune dysregulation in HS involves elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), which is a key mediator of inflammation and a stimulator of other inflammatory cytokines.^59,60 The first approved biologic treatment of HS was adalimumab, a TNF-α inhibitor, which showed a 50% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule count in 60% of patients with moderate to severe HS.^61-63 Of course, TNF-α inhibitor therapy is not without risks, specifically those of infection.^43,53,61,62 Maintenance therapy may be required if patients relapse.^53,61

Various interleukin inhibitors also have emerged as potential therapies for HS, such as ustekinumab and anakinra.^36,64 Both have been subject to numerous small case trials that have reported improvements in clinical severity and pain; however, both drugs were associated with a fair number of nonresponders.^36,64,65

Surgical Procedures

Although HS lesions may regress on their own in a matter of weeks, surgical drainage allows an acute alleviation of the severe burning pain associated with HS flares.^36,52,53 Because of improved understanding of the disease pathophysiology, recent therapies targeting the hair follicle have been developed and have shown promising results. These therapies include laser- and light-based procedures. Long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser therapy reduces the number of hair follicles and sebaceous glands and has been effective for Hurley stage I or II disease.^{36,43,52,53,66} Photodynamic therapy offers a less-invasive option compared to surgery and laser therapy.^52,53,66 Both Nd:YAG and CO₂ laser therapy offer low recurrence rates (<30%) due to destruction of the apocrine unit.^43,53 Photodynamic therapy for mild disease offers a less-invasive option compared to surgery and laser therapy.⁵³ There is a need for larger randomized controlled trials involving laser, light, and CO₂ therapies.⁶⁶

Conclusion

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a debilitating condition with an underestimated disease burden. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is not completely understood, it is evident that pain is a major cause of morbidity. Patients experience a multitude of acute and chronic pain types: inflammatory, noninflammatory, nociceptive, neuropathic, and ischemic. Pain perception and quality of life are further impacted by psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety, both of which are common comorbidities in patients with HS. Several pharmacologic agents have been used to treat HS-associated pain with mixed results. First-line treatment of acute pain episodes includes oral acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and topical analgesics. Management of chronic pain includes utilization of topical agents, systemic agents, and biologics, as well as addressing lifestyle (eg, obesity, smoking status) and psychiatric comorbidities. Although these therapies have roles in HS pain management, the most effective pain remedies developed thus far are limited to surgery and TNF-α inhibitors. Optimization of pain control in patients with HS requires multidisciplinary collaboration among dermatologists, pain specialists, psychiatrists, and other members of the health care team. Further large-scale studies are needed to create an evidence-based treatment algorithm for the management of pain in HS.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory, androgen gland disorder characterized by recurrent rupture of the hair follicles with a vigorous inflammatory response. This response results in abscess formation and development of draining sinus tracts and hypertrophic fibrous scars.^1,2 Pain, discomfort, and odorous discharge from the recalcitrant lesions have a profound impact on patient quality of life.^3,4

The morbidity and disease burden associated with HS are particularly underestimated, as patients frequently report debilitating pain that often is overlooked.^5,6 Additionally, the quality and intensity of perceived pain are compounded by frequently associated depression and anxiety.^7-9 Pain has been reported by patients with HS to be the highest cause of morbidity, despite the disfiguring nature of the disease and its associated psychosocial distress.^7,10 Nonetheless, HS lacks an accepted pain management algorithm similar to those that have been developed for the treatment of other acute or chronic pain disorders, such as back pain and sickle cell disease.^4,11-13

Given the lack of formal studies regarding pain management in patients with HS, clinicians are limited to general pain guidelines, expert opinion, small trials, and patient preference.³ Furthermore, effective pain management in HS necessitates the treatment of both chronic pain affecting daily function and acute pain present during disease flares, surgical interventions, and dressing changes.³ The result is a wide array of strategies used for HS-associated pain.^3,4

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Hidradenitis suppurativa historically has been an overlooked and underdiagnosed disease, which limits epidemiology data.⁵ Current estimates are that HS affects approximately 1% of the general population; however, prevalence rates range from 0.03% to 4.1%.^14-16

The exact etiology of HS remains unclear, but it is thought that genetic factors, immune dysregulation, and environmental/behavioral influences all contribute to its pathophysiology.^1,17 Up to 40% of patients with HS report a positive family history of the disease.^18-20 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with other inflammatory disease states, such as inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthropathies, and pyoderma gangrenosum.^16,21,22

It is thought that HS is the result of some defect in keratin clearance that leads to follicular hyperkeratinization and occlusion.¹ Resultant rupture of pilosebaceous units and spillage of contents (including keratin and bacteria) into the surrounding dermis triggers a vigorous inflammatory response. Sinus tracts and fistulas become the targets of bacterial colonization, biofilm formation, and secondary infection. The result is suppuration and extension of the lesions as well as sustained chronic inflammation.^23,24

Although the etiology of HS is complex, several modifiable risk factors for the disease have been identified, most prominently cigarette smoking and obesity. Approximately 70% of patients with HS smoke cigarettes.^2,15,25,26 Obesity has a well-known association with HS, and it is possible that weight reduction lowers disease severity.^27-30

Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis

Establishing a diagnosis of HS necessitates recognition of disease morphology, topography, and chronicity. Hidradenitis suppurativa most commonly occurs in the axillae, inguinal and anogenital region, perineal region, and inframammary region.^5,31 A typical history involves a prolonged disease course with recurrent lesions and intermittent periods of improvement or remission. Primary lesions are deep, inflamed, painful, and sterile. Ultimately, these lesions rupture and track subcutaneously.^15,25 Intercommunicating sinus tracts form from multiple recurrent nodules in close proximity and may ultimately lead to fibrotic scarring and local architectural distortion.³² The Hurley staging system helps to guide treatment interventions based on disease severity. Approach to pain management is discussed below.

Pain Management in HS: General Principles

Pain management is complex for clinicians, as there are limited studies from which to draw treatment recommendations. Incomplete understanding of the etiology and pathophysiology of the disease contributes to the lack of established management guidelines.

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms hidradenitis, suppurativa, pain, and management revealed 61 different results dating back to 1980, 52 of which had been published in the last 5 years. When the word acute was added to the search, there were only 6 results identified. These results clearly reflect a better understanding of HS-mediated pain as well as clinical unmet needs and evolving strategies in pain management therapeutics. However, many of these studies reflect therapies focused on the mediation or modulation of HS pathogenesis rather than potential pain management therapies.

In addition, the heterogenous nature of the pain experience in HS poses a challenge for clinicians. Patients may experience multiple pain types concurrently, including inflammatory, noninflammatory, nociceptive, neuropathic, and ischemic, as well as pain related to arthritis.^3,33,34 Pain perception is further complicated by the observation that patients with HS have high rates of psychiatric comorbidities such as depression and anxiety, both of which profoundly alter perception of both the strength and quality of pain.^7,8,22,35 A suggested algorithm for treatment of pain in HS is described in the eTable.³⁶

Chronicity is a hallmark of HS. Patients experience a prolonged disease course involving acute painful exacerbations superimposed on chronic pain that affects all aspects of daily life. Changes in self-perception, daily living activities, mood state, physical functioning, and physical comfort frequently are reported to have a major impact on quality of life.^1,3,37

In 2018, Thorlacius et al³⁸ created a multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set of domains detailing what to measure in clinical trials for HS. The authors hoped that the routine adoption of these core domains would promote the collection of consistent and relevant information, bolster the strength of evidence synthesis, and minimize the risk for outcome reporting bias among studies.³⁸ It is important to ascertain the patient’s description of his/her pain to distinguish between stimulus-dependent nociceptive pain vs spontaneous neuropathic pain.^3,7,10 The most common pain descriptors used by patients are “shooting,” “itchy,” “blinding,” “cutting,” and “exhausting.”¹⁰ In addition to obtaining descriptive factors, it is important for the clinician to obtain information on the timing of the pain, whether or not the pain is relieved with spontaneous or surgical drainage, and if the patient is experiencing chronic background pain secondary to scarring or skin contraction.³ With the routine utilization of a consistent set of core domains, advances in our understanding of the different elements of HS pain, and increased provider awareness of the disease, the future of pain management in patients with HS seems promising.

Acute and Perioperative Pain Management

Acute Pain Management—The pain in HS can range from mild to excruciating.^3,7 The difference between acute and chronic pain in this condition may be hard to delineate, as patients may have intense acute flares on top of a baseline level of chronic pain.^3,7,14 These factors, in combination with various pain types of differing etiologies, make the treatment of HS-associated pain a therapeutic challenge.

The first-line treatments for acute pain in HS are oral acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and topical analgesics.³ These treatment modalities are especially helpful for nociceptive pain, which often is described as having an aching or tender quality.³ Topical treatment for acute pain episodes includes diclofenac gel and liposomal lidocaine cream.³⁹ Topical lidocaine in particular has the benefit of being rapid acting, and its effect can last 1 to 2 hours. Ketamine has been anecdotally used as a topical treatment. Treatment options for neuropathic pain include topical amitriptyline, gabapentin, and pregabalin.³⁹ Dressings and ice packs may be used in cases of mild acute pain, depending on patient preference.³

First-line therapies may not provide adequate pain control in many patients.^3,40,41 Should the first-line treatments fail, oral opiates can be considered as a treatment option, especially if the patient has a history of recurrent pain unresponsive to milder methods of pain control.^3,40,41 However, prudence should be exercised, as patients with HS have a higher risk for opioid abuse, and referral to a pain specialist is advisable.⁴⁰ Generally, use of opioids should be limited to the smallest period of time possible.^40,41 Codeine can be used as a first opioid option, with hydromorphone available as an alternative.⁴¹

Pain caused by inflamed abscesses and nodules can be treated with either intralesional corticosteroids or incision and drainage. Intralesional triamcinolone has been found to cause substantial pain relief within 1 day of injection in patients with HS.^3,42

Prompt discussion about the remitting course of HS will prepare patients for flares. Although the therapies discussed here aim to reduce the clinical severity and inflammation associated with HS, achieving pain-free remission can be challenging. Barriers to developing a long-term treatment regimen include intolerable side effects or simply nonresponsive disease.^36,43

Management of Perioperative Pain—Medical treatment of HS often yields only transient or mild results. Hurley stage II or III lesions typically require surgical removal of affected tissues.^32,44-46 Surgery may dramatically reduce the primary disease burden and provide substantial pain relief.^3,4,44 Complete resection of the affected tissue by wide excision is the most common surgical procedure used.^46-48 However, various tissue-sparing techniques, such as skin-tissue-sparing excision with electrosurgical peeling, also have been utilized. Tissue-sparing surgical techniques may lead to shorter healing times and less postoperative pain.⁴⁸

There currently is little guidance available on the perioperative management of pain as it relates to surgical procedures for HS. The pain experienced from surgery varies based on the area and location of affected tissue; extent of disease; surgical technique used; and whether primary closure, closure by secondary intention, or skin grafting is utilized.^47,49 Medical treatment aimed at reducing inflammation prior to surgical intervention may improve postoperative pain and complications.

The use of general vs local anesthesia during surgery depends on the extent of the disease and the amount of tissue being removed; however, the use of local anesthesia has been associated with a higher recurrence of disease, possibly owing to less aggressive tissue removal.⁵⁰ Intraoperatively, the injection of 0.5% bupivacaine around the wound edges may lead to less postoperative pain.^3,48 Postoperative pain usually is managed with acetaminophen and NSAIDs.⁴⁸ In cases of severe postoperative pain, short- and long-acting opioid oxycodone preparations may be used. The combination of diclofenac and tramadol also has been used postoperatively.³ Patients who do not undergo extensive surgery often can leave the hospital the same day.

Effective strategies for mitigating HS-associated pain must address the chronic pain component of the disease. Long-term management involves lifestyle modifications and pharmacologic agents.

Chronic Pain Management

Although HS is not a curable disease, there are treatments available to minimize symptoms. Long-term management of HS is essential to minimize the effects of chronic pain and physical scarring associated with inflammation.³¹ In one study from the French Society of Dermatology, pain reported by patients with HS was directly associated with severity and duration of disease, emotional symptoms, and reduced functionality.⁵¹ For these reasons, many treatments for HS target reducing clinical severity and achieving remission, often defined as more than 6 months without any recurrence of lesions.⁵² In addition to lifestyle management, therapies available to manage HS include topical and systemic medications as well as procedures such as surgical excision.^36,43,52,53

Lifestyle Modifications

Regardless of the severity of HS, all patients may benefit from basic education on the pathogenesis of the disease.³⁶ The associations with smoking and obesity have been well documented, and treatment of these comorbid conditions is indicated.^36,43,52 For example, in relation to obesity, the use of metformin is very well tolerated and seems to positively impact HS symptoms.⁴³ Several studies have suggested that weight reduction lowers disease severity.^28-30 Patients should be counseled on the importance of smoking cessation and weight loss.

Finally, the emotional impact of HS is not to be discounted, both the physical and social discomfort as well as the chronicity of the disease and frustration with treatment.⁵¹ Chronic pain has been associated with increased rates of depression, and 43% of patients with HS specifically have been diagnosed with major depressive disorder.⁷ For these reasons, clinician guidance, social support, and websites can improve patient understanding of the disease, adherence to treatment, and comorbid anxiety and depression.⁵²

Topical Therapy

Topical therapy generally is limited to mild disease and is geared at decreasing inflammation or superimposed infection.^36,52 Some of the earliest therapies used were topical antibiotics.⁴³ Topical clindamycin has been shown to be as effective as oral tetracyclines in reducing the number of abscesses, but neither treatment substantially reduces pain associated with smaller nodules.⁵⁴ Intralesional corticosteroids such as triamcinolone acetonide have been shown to decrease both patient-reported pain and physician-assessed severity within 1 to 7 days.⁴² Routine injection, however, is not a feasible means of long-term treatment both because of inconvenience and the potential adverse effects of corticosteroids.^36,52 Both topical clindamycin and intralesional steroids are helpful in reducing inflammation prior to planned surgical intervention.^36,52,53

Newer topical therapies include resorcinol peels and combination antimicrobials, such as 2% triclosan and oral zinc gluconate.^52,53 Data surrounding the use of resorcinol in mild to moderate HS are promising and have shown decreased severity of both new and long-standing nodules. Fifteen-percent resorcinol peels are helpful tools that allow for self-administration by patients during exacerbations to decrease pain and flare duration.^55,56 In a 2016 clinical trial, a combination of oral zinc gluconate with topical triclosan was shown to reduce flare-ups and nodules in mild HS.⁵⁷ Oral zinc alone may have anti-inflammatory properties and generally is well tolerated.^43,53 Topical therapies have a role in reducing HS-associated pain but often are limited to milder disease.

Systemic Agents

Several therapeutic options exist for the treatment of HS; however, a detailed description of their mechanisms and efficacies is beyond the scope of this review, which is focused on pain. Briefly, these systemic agents include antibiotics, retinoids, corticosteroids, antiandrogens, and biologics.^43,52,53

Treatment with antibiotics such as tetracyclines or a combination of clindamycin plus rifampin has been shown to produce complete remission in 60% to 80% of users; however, this treatment requires more than 6 months of antibiotic therapy, which can be difficult to tolerate.^52,53,58 Relapse is common after antibiotic cessation.^2,43,52 Antibiotics have demonstrated efficacy during acute flares and in reducing inflammatory activity prior to surgery.⁵²

Retinoids have been utilized in the treatment of HS because of their action on sebaceous glands and hair follicles.^43,53 Acitretin has been shown to be the most effective oral retinoid available in the United States.⁴³ Unfortunately, many of the studies investigating the use of retinoids for treatment of HS are limited by small sample size.^36,43,52

Because HS is predominantly an inflammatory condition, immunosuppressants have been adapted to manage patients when antibiotics and topicals have failed. Systemic steroids rarely are used for long-term therapy because of the severe side effects and are preferred only for acute management.^36,52 Cyclosporine and dapsone have demonstrated efficacy in treating moderate to severe HS, whereas methotrexate and colchicine have shown little efficacy.⁵² Both cyclosporine and dapsone are difficult to tolerate, require laboratory monitoring, and lead to only conservative improvement rather than remission in most patients.⁴³

Immune dysregulation in HS involves elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), which is a key mediator of inflammation and a stimulator of other inflammatory cytokines.^59,60 The first approved biologic treatment of HS was adalimumab, a TNF-α inhibitor, which showed a 50% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule count in 60% of patients with moderate to severe HS.^61-63 Of course, TNF-α inhibitor therapy is not without risks, specifically those of infection.^43,53,61,62 Maintenance therapy may be required if patients relapse.^53,61

Various interleukin inhibitors also have emerged as potential therapies for HS, such as ustekinumab and anakinra.^36,64 Both have been subject to numerous small case trials that have reported improvements in clinical severity and pain; however, both drugs were associated with a fair number of nonresponders.^36,64,65

Surgical Procedures

Although HS lesions may regress on their own in a matter of weeks, surgical drainage allows an acute alleviation of the severe burning pain associated with HS flares.^36,52,53 Because of improved understanding of the disease pathophysiology, recent therapies targeting the hair follicle have been developed and have shown promising results. These therapies include laser- and light-based procedures. Long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser therapy reduces the number of hair follicles and sebaceous glands and has been effective for Hurley stage I or II disease.^{36,43,52,53,66} Photodynamic therapy offers a less-invasive option compared to surgery and laser therapy.^52,53,66 Both Nd:YAG and CO₂ laser therapy offer low recurrence rates (<30%) due to destruction of the apocrine unit.^43,53 Photodynamic therapy for mild disease offers a less-invasive option compared to surgery and laser therapy.⁵³ There is a need for larger randomized controlled trials involving laser, light, and CO₂ therapies.⁶⁶

Conclusion

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a debilitating condition with an underestimated disease burden. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is not completely understood, it is evident that pain is a major cause of morbidity. Patients experience a multitude of acute and chronic pain types: inflammatory, noninflammatory, nociceptive, neuropathic, and ischemic. Pain perception and quality of life are further impacted by psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety, both of which are common comorbidities in patients with HS. Several pharmacologic agents have been used to treat HS-associated pain with mixed results. First-line treatment of acute pain episodes includes oral acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and topical analgesics. Management of chronic pain includes utilization of topical agents, systemic agents, and biologics, as well as addressing lifestyle (eg, obesity, smoking status) and psychiatric comorbidities. Although these therapies have roles in HS pain management, the most effective pain remedies developed thus far are limited to surgery and TNF-α inhibitors. Optimization of pain control in patients with HS requires multidisciplinary collaboration among dermatologists, pain specialists, psychiatrists, and other members of the health care team. Further large-scale studies are needed to create an evidence-based treatment algorithm for the management of pain in HS.

For those of us who cannot sit in the sun and fish all day, the next best thing for preventing autoimmune diseases may be supplementation with vitamin D and fish oil-derived omega-3 fatty acids, results of a large prospective randomized trial suggest.

Ziga Plahutar

Among nearly 26,000 adults enrolled in a randomized trial designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and omega-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases, reported Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“The clinical importance of these results is very high, given that these are nontoxic, well-tolerated supplements, and that there are no other known effective therapies to reduce the incidence of autoimmune diseases,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“People do have to take the supplements a long time to start to see the reduction in risk, especially for vitamin D, but they make biological sense, and autoimmune diseases develop slowly over time, so taking it today isn’t going to reduce risk of developing something tomorrow,” Dr. Costenbader said in an interview.

“These supplements have other health benefits. Obviously, fish oil is anti-inflammatory, and vitamin D is good for osteoporosis prevention, especially in our patients who take glucocorticoids. People who are otherwise healthy and have a family history of autoimmune disease might also consider starting to take these supplements,” she said.

After watching her presentation, session co-moderator Gregg Silverman, MD, from the NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York, who was not involved in the study, commented “I’m going to [nutrition store] GNC to get some vitamins.”

When asked for comment, the other session moderator, Tracy Frech, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said, “I think Dr. Costenbader’s work is very important and her presentation excellent. My current practice is replacement of vitamin D in all autoimmune disease patients with low levels and per bone health guidelines. Additionally, I discuss omega-3 supplementation with Sjögren’s [syndrome] patients as a consideration.”

Evidence base

Dr. Costenbader noted that in a 2013 observational study from France, vitamin D derived through ultraviolet (UV) light exposure was associated with a lower risk for incident Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis, and in two analyses of data in 2014 from the Nurses’ Health Study, both high plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D and geographic residence in areas of high UV exposure were associated with a decreased incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Other observational studies have supported omega-3 fatty acids for their anti-inflammatory properties, including a 2005 Danish prospective cohort study showing a lower risk for RA in participants who reported higher levels of fatty fish intake. In a separate study conducted in 2017, healthy volunteers with higher omega-3 fatty acid/total lipid proportions in red blood cell membranes had a lower prevalence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies and rheumatoid factor and a lower incidence of progression to inflammatory arthritis, she said.

Ancillary study

Despite the evidence, however, there have been no prospective randomized trials to test the effects of either vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on the incidence of autoimmune disease over time.

To rectify this, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older, and 13,085 women aged 55 and older.

The study had a 2 x 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2,000 IU/day or placebo, and then further randomized to either 1 g/day omega-3 fatty acids or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

At baseline 16,956 participants were assayed for 25-OH vitamin D and plasma omega 3 index, the ratio of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to total fatty acids. Participants self-reported baseline and all incident autoimmune diseases annually, with the reports confirmed by medical record review and disease criteria whenever possible.

Results

At 5 years of follow-up, confirmed incident autoimmune diseases had occurred in 123 patients in the active vitamin D group, compared with 155 in the placebo vitamin D group, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for vitamin D of 0.78 (P = .045).

In the active omega-3 arm, 130 participants developed an autoimmune disease, compared with 148 in the placebo omega-3 arm, which translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.85.

There was no statistical interaction between the two supplements. The investigators did observe an interaction between vitamin D and body mass index, with the effect stronger among participants with low BMI (P = .02). There also was an interaction between omega-3 fatty acids with a family history of autoimmune disease (P = .03).

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with an HR for incident autoimmune disease of 0.68 (P = .02), omega-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03).

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a high-risk or nutritionally-deficient population, where the effects of supplementation might be larger; the restriction of the sample to older adults; and to the difficulty of confirming incident autoimmune thyroid disease from patient reports.

Cheryl Koehn, an arthritis patient advocate from Vancouver, Canada, who was not involved in the study, commented in the “chat” section of the presentation that her rheumatologist “has recommended vitamin D for years now. Says basically everyone north of Boston is vitamin D deficient. I take 1,000 IU per day. Been taking it for years.” Ms. Koehn is the founder and president of Arthritis Consumer Experts, a website that provides education to those with arthritis.

“Agreed. I tell every patient to take vitamin D supplement,” commented Fatma Dedeoglu, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital.



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

For those of us who cannot sit in the sun and fish all day, the next best thing for preventing autoimmune diseases may be supplementation with vitamin D and fish oil-derived omega-3 fatty acids, results of a large prospective randomized trial suggest.

Ziga Plahutar

Among nearly 26,000 adults enrolled in a randomized trial designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and omega-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases, reported Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“The clinical importance of these results is very high, given that these are nontoxic, well-tolerated supplements, and that there are no other known effective therapies to reduce the incidence of autoimmune diseases,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“People do have to take the supplements a long time to start to see the reduction in risk, especially for vitamin D, but they make biological sense, and autoimmune diseases develop slowly over time, so taking it today isn’t going to reduce risk of developing something tomorrow,” Dr. Costenbader said in an interview.

“These supplements have other health benefits. Obviously, fish oil is anti-inflammatory, and vitamin D is good for osteoporosis prevention, especially in our patients who take glucocorticoids. People who are otherwise healthy and have a family history of autoimmune disease might also consider starting to take these supplements,” she said.

After watching her presentation, session co-moderator Gregg Silverman, MD, from the NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York, who was not involved in the study, commented “I’m going to [nutrition store] GNC to get some vitamins.”

When asked for comment, the other session moderator, Tracy Frech, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said, “I think Dr. Costenbader’s work is very important and her presentation excellent. My current practice is replacement of vitamin D in all autoimmune disease patients with low levels and per bone health guidelines. Additionally, I discuss omega-3 supplementation with Sjögren’s [syndrome] patients as a consideration.”

Evidence base

Dr. Costenbader noted that in a 2013 observational study from France, vitamin D derived through ultraviolet (UV) light exposure was associated with a lower risk for incident Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis, and in two analyses of data in 2014 from the Nurses’ Health Study, both high plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D and geographic residence in areas of high UV exposure were associated with a decreased incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Other observational studies have supported omega-3 fatty acids for their anti-inflammatory properties, including a 2005 Danish prospective cohort study showing a lower risk for RA in participants who reported higher levels of fatty fish intake. In a separate study conducted in 2017, healthy volunteers with higher omega-3 fatty acid/total lipid proportions in red blood cell membranes had a lower prevalence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies and rheumatoid factor and a lower incidence of progression to inflammatory arthritis, she said.

Ancillary study

Despite the evidence, however, there have been no prospective randomized trials to test the effects of either vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on the incidence of autoimmune disease over time.

To rectify this, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older, and 13,085 women aged 55 and older.

The study had a 2 x 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2,000 IU/day or placebo, and then further randomized to either 1 g/day omega-3 fatty acids or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

At baseline 16,956 participants were assayed for 25-OH vitamin D and plasma omega 3 index, the ratio of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to total fatty acids. Participants self-reported baseline and all incident autoimmune diseases annually, with the reports confirmed by medical record review and disease criteria whenever possible.

Results

At 5 years of follow-up, confirmed incident autoimmune diseases had occurred in 123 patients in the active vitamin D group, compared with 155 in the placebo vitamin D group, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for vitamin D of 0.78 (P = .045).

In the active omega-3 arm, 130 participants developed an autoimmune disease, compared with 148 in the placebo omega-3 arm, which translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.85.

There was no statistical interaction between the two supplements. The investigators did observe an interaction between vitamin D and body mass index, with the effect stronger among participants with low BMI (P = .02). There also was an interaction between omega-3 fatty acids with a family history of autoimmune disease (P = .03).

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with an HR for incident autoimmune disease of 0.68 (P = .02), omega-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03).

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a high-risk or nutritionally-deficient population, where the effects of supplementation might be larger; the restriction of the sample to older adults; and to the difficulty of confirming incident autoimmune thyroid disease from patient reports.

Cheryl Koehn, an arthritis patient advocate from Vancouver, Canada, who was not involved in the study, commented in the “chat” section of the presentation that her rheumatologist “has recommended vitamin D for years now. Says basically everyone north of Boston is vitamin D deficient. I take 1,000 IU per day. Been taking it for years.” Ms. Koehn is the founder and president of Arthritis Consumer Experts, a website that provides education to those with arthritis.

“Agreed. I tell every patient to take vitamin D supplement,” commented Fatma Dedeoglu, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital.



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

For those of us who cannot sit in the sun and fish all day, the next best thing for preventing autoimmune diseases may be supplementation with vitamin D and fish oil-derived omega-3 fatty acids, results of a large prospective randomized trial suggest.

Ziga Plahutar

Among nearly 26,000 adults enrolled in a randomized trial designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and omega-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases, reported Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“The clinical importance of these results is very high, given that these are nontoxic, well-tolerated supplements, and that there are no other known effective therapies to reduce the incidence of autoimmune diseases,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“People do have to take the supplements a long time to start to see the reduction in risk, especially for vitamin D, but they make biological sense, and autoimmune diseases develop slowly over time, so taking it today isn’t going to reduce risk of developing something tomorrow,” Dr. Costenbader said in an interview.

“These supplements have other health benefits. Obviously, fish oil is anti-inflammatory, and vitamin D is good for osteoporosis prevention, especially in our patients who take glucocorticoids. People who are otherwise healthy and have a family history of autoimmune disease might also consider starting to take these supplements,” she said.

After watching her presentation, session co-moderator Gregg Silverman, MD, from the NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York, who was not involved in the study, commented “I’m going to [nutrition store] GNC to get some vitamins.”

When asked for comment, the other session moderator, Tracy Frech, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said, “I think Dr. Costenbader’s work is very important and her presentation excellent. My current practice is replacement of vitamin D in all autoimmune disease patients with low levels and per bone health guidelines. Additionally, I discuss omega-3 supplementation with Sjögren’s [syndrome] patients as a consideration.”

Evidence base

Dr. Costenbader noted that in a 2013 observational study from France, vitamin D derived through ultraviolet (UV) light exposure was associated with a lower risk for incident Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis, and in two analyses of data in 2014 from the Nurses’ Health Study, both high plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D and geographic residence in areas of high UV exposure were associated with a decreased incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Other observational studies have supported omega-3 fatty acids for their anti-inflammatory properties, including a 2005 Danish prospective cohort study showing a lower risk for RA in participants who reported higher levels of fatty fish intake. In a separate study conducted in 2017, healthy volunteers with higher omega-3 fatty acid/total lipid proportions in red blood cell membranes had a lower prevalence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies and rheumatoid factor and a lower incidence of progression to inflammatory arthritis, she said.

Ancillary study

Despite the evidence, however, there have been no prospective randomized trials to test the effects of either vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on the incidence of autoimmune disease over time.

To rectify this, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older, and 13,085 women aged 55 and older.

The study had a 2 x 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2,000 IU/day or placebo, and then further randomized to either 1 g/day omega-3 fatty acids or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

At baseline 16,956 participants were assayed for 25-OH vitamin D and plasma omega 3 index, the ratio of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to total fatty acids. Participants self-reported baseline and all incident autoimmune diseases annually, with the reports confirmed by medical record review and disease criteria whenever possible.

Results

At 5 years of follow-up, confirmed incident autoimmune diseases had occurred in 123 patients in the active vitamin D group, compared with 155 in the placebo vitamin D group, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for vitamin D of 0.78 (P = .045).

In the active omega-3 arm, 130 participants developed an autoimmune disease, compared with 148 in the placebo omega-3 arm, which translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.85.

There was no statistical interaction between the two supplements. The investigators did observe an interaction between vitamin D and body mass index, with the effect stronger among participants with low BMI (P = .02). There also was an interaction between omega-3 fatty acids with a family history of autoimmune disease (P = .03).

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with an HR for incident autoimmune disease of 0.68 (P = .02), omega-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03).

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a high-risk or nutritionally-deficient population, where the effects of supplementation might be larger; the restriction of the sample to older adults; and to the difficulty of confirming incident autoimmune thyroid disease from patient reports.

Cheryl Koehn, an arthritis patient advocate from Vancouver, Canada, who was not involved in the study, commented in the “chat” section of the presentation that her rheumatologist “has recommended vitamin D for years now. Says basically everyone north of Boston is vitamin D deficient. I take 1,000 IU per day. Been taking it for years.” Ms. Koehn is the founder and president of Arthritis Consumer Experts, a website that provides education to those with arthritis.

“Agreed. I tell every patient to take vitamin D supplement,” commented Fatma Dedeoglu, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital.



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

Chemical peels are an effective and well-tolerated field treatment for actinic keratoses (AKs), according to the authors of a systematic review of five studies including 88 patients.

AKs remain an ongoing health concern because of their potential to become malignant, and chemical peels are among the recommended options for field therapy, wrote Angela J. Jiang, MD, from the department of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and colleagues. “Although most dermatologists agree on the importance of field treatment, cryotherapy still remains the standard of care for treatment of AKs,” they noted, adding that the safety and efficacy of chemical peels for AK field therapy have not been well studied.

Chemical peels offer the benefit of a single treatment for patients, which eliminates the patient compliance issue needed for successful topical therapy, the researchers said. In fact, “patients report preference for the tolerability of treatment with chemical peels and the shorter downtime, compared with other field treatments,” they added.

In the study published in Dermatologic Surgery, they reviewed data from five prospective studies on the safety and efficacy of chemical peels as AK field treatments published from 1946 to March 2020 in the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database. Of the 151 articles on the use of chemical peels for AKs, the 5 studies met the criteria for their review.

One split-face study evaluated glycolic acid peels (published in 1998), two split-face studies evaluated a combination of Jessner’s and 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) peels (published in 1995 and 1997), and two randomized studies evaluated TCA peels alone (published in 2006 and 2016).

Overall, the studies showed efficacy of peels in reducing AK counts, with minimal adverse events. In the glycolic acid study, 70% glycolic acid plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) yielded a 91.9% mean reduction in AKs at 6 months’ follow-up. A combination of Jessner’s solution and 35% TCA showed a significant reduction in AKs at 12 and at 32 months post treatment – a 75% reduction at 12 months in one study and 78% at 32 months in the other – similar to results achieved with 5-FU.

In studies of TCA alone, 30% TCA peels were similar in AK reduction (89%) to 5-FU (83%) and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing (92%). In another TCA study, 35% TCA was less effective at AK reduction at 12 months, compared with aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT), but the 35% peel was applied at a more superficial level than in the study of 30% TCA, the authors wrote.

Chemical peels also demonstrated effectiveness in preventing keratinocytic carcinomas, the researchers wrote. In the 30% TCA study, the rate of keratinocyte carcinoma development was 3.75-5.25 times lower in patients treated with 30% TCA peels, compared with 5-FU and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing (CO₂) after 5 years.

Chemical peels were well tolerated overall, although side effects varied among the studies. Patients in one study reported no side effects, while patients in other studies reported transient erythema and discomfort. In the study comparing TCA with PDT treatment, PDT was associated with greater pain, erythema, and pustules, the researchers wrote; however, patients treated with 35% TCA reported scarring.

From patients’ perspectives, chemical peels were preferable because of the single application, brief downtime, and minimal adverse effects. From the provider perspective, chemical peels are a more cost-effective way to treat large surface areas for AKs, compared with 5-FU or lasers, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of prospective studies and relatively small number of patients, they noted. “The small number of included studies is partially due to the lack of studies that performed AK counts before and after treatments,” they said. The dearth of literature on chemical peels for AKs may stem from lack of residency training on the use of peels, they added.

However, the results support the use of chemical peels as an effective option for field treatment of AKs, with the added benefits of convenience and cost-effectiveness for patients, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Chemical peels are an effective and well-tolerated field treatment for actinic keratoses (AKs), according to the authors of a systematic review of five studies including 88 patients.

AKs remain an ongoing health concern because of their potential to become malignant, and chemical peels are among the recommended options for field therapy, wrote Angela J. Jiang, MD, from the department of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and colleagues. “Although most dermatologists agree on the importance of field treatment, cryotherapy still remains the standard of care for treatment of AKs,” they noted, adding that the safety and efficacy of chemical peels for AK field therapy have not been well studied.

Chemical peels offer the benefit of a single treatment for patients, which eliminates the patient compliance issue needed for successful topical therapy, the researchers said. In fact, “patients report preference for the tolerability of treatment with chemical peels and the shorter downtime, compared with other field treatments,” they added.

In the study published in Dermatologic Surgery, they reviewed data from five prospective studies on the safety and efficacy of chemical peels as AK field treatments published from 1946 to March 2020 in the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database. Of the 151 articles on the use of chemical peels for AKs, the 5 studies met the criteria for their review.

One split-face study evaluated glycolic acid peels (published in 1998), two split-face studies evaluated a combination of Jessner’s and 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) peels (published in 1995 and 1997), and two randomized studies evaluated TCA peels alone (published in 2006 and 2016).

Overall, the studies showed efficacy of peels in reducing AK counts, with minimal adverse events. In the glycolic acid study, 70% glycolic acid plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) yielded a 91.9% mean reduction in AKs at 6 months’ follow-up. A combination of Jessner’s solution and 35% TCA showed a significant reduction in AKs at 12 and at 32 months post treatment – a 75% reduction at 12 months in one study and 78% at 32 months in the other – similar to results achieved with 5-FU.

In studies of TCA alone, 30% TCA peels were similar in AK reduction (89%) to 5-FU (83%) and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing (92%). In another TCA study, 35% TCA was less effective at AK reduction at 12 months, compared with aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT), but the 35% peel was applied at a more superficial level than in the study of 30% TCA, the authors wrote.

Chemical peels also demonstrated effectiveness in preventing keratinocytic carcinomas, the researchers wrote. In the 30% TCA study, the rate of keratinocyte carcinoma development was 3.75-5.25 times lower in patients treated with 30% TCA peels, compared with 5-FU and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing (CO₂) after 5 years.

Chemical peels were well tolerated overall, although side effects varied among the studies. Patients in one study reported no side effects, while patients in other studies reported transient erythema and discomfort. In the study comparing TCA with PDT treatment, PDT was associated with greater pain, erythema, and pustules, the researchers wrote; however, patients treated with 35% TCA reported scarring.

From patients’ perspectives, chemical peels were preferable because of the single application, brief downtime, and minimal adverse effects. From the provider perspective, chemical peels are a more cost-effective way to treat large surface areas for AKs, compared with 5-FU or lasers, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of prospective studies and relatively small number of patients, they noted. “The small number of included studies is partially due to the lack of studies that performed AK counts before and after treatments,” they said. The dearth of literature on chemical peels for AKs may stem from lack of residency training on the use of peels, they added.

However, the results support the use of chemical peels as an effective option for field treatment of AKs, with the added benefits of convenience and cost-effectiveness for patients, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Chemical peels are an effective and well-tolerated field treatment for actinic keratoses (AKs), according to the authors of a systematic review of five studies including 88 patients.

AKs remain an ongoing health concern because of their potential to become malignant, and chemical peels are among the recommended options for field therapy, wrote Angela J. Jiang, MD, from the department of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and colleagues. “Although most dermatologists agree on the importance of field treatment, cryotherapy still remains the standard of care for treatment of AKs,” they noted, adding that the safety and efficacy of chemical peels for AK field therapy have not been well studied.

Chemical peels offer the benefit of a single treatment for patients, which eliminates the patient compliance issue needed for successful topical therapy, the researchers said. In fact, “patients report preference for the tolerability of treatment with chemical peels and the shorter downtime, compared with other field treatments,” they added.

In the study published in Dermatologic Surgery, they reviewed data from five prospective studies on the safety and efficacy of chemical peels as AK field treatments published from 1946 to March 2020 in the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database. Of the 151 articles on the use of chemical peels for AKs, the 5 studies met the criteria for their review.

One split-face study evaluated glycolic acid peels (published in 1998), two split-face studies evaluated a combination of Jessner’s and 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) peels (published in 1995 and 1997), and two randomized studies evaluated TCA peels alone (published in 2006 and 2016).

Overall, the studies showed efficacy of peels in reducing AK counts, with minimal adverse events. In the glycolic acid study, 70% glycolic acid plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) yielded a 91.9% mean reduction in AKs at 6 months’ follow-up. A combination of Jessner’s solution and 35% TCA showed a significant reduction in AKs at 12 and at 32 months post treatment – a 75% reduction at 12 months in one study and 78% at 32 months in the other – similar to results achieved with 5-FU.

In studies of TCA alone, 30% TCA peels were similar in AK reduction (89%) to 5-FU (83%) and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing (92%). In another TCA study, 35% TCA was less effective at AK reduction at 12 months, compared with aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT), but the 35% peel was applied at a more superficial level than in the study of 30% TCA, the authors wrote.

Chemical peels also demonstrated effectiveness in preventing keratinocytic carcinomas, the researchers wrote. In the 30% TCA study, the rate of keratinocyte carcinoma development was 3.75-5.25 times lower in patients treated with 30% TCA peels, compared with 5-FU and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing (CO₂) after 5 years.

Chemical peels were well tolerated overall, although side effects varied among the studies. Patients in one study reported no side effects, while patients in other studies reported transient erythema and discomfort. In the study comparing TCA with PDT treatment, PDT was associated with greater pain, erythema, and pustules, the researchers wrote; however, patients treated with 35% TCA reported scarring.

From patients’ perspectives, chemical peels were preferable because of the single application, brief downtime, and minimal adverse effects. From the provider perspective, chemical peels are a more cost-effective way to treat large surface areas for AKs, compared with 5-FU or lasers, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of prospective studies and relatively small number of patients, they noted. “The small number of included studies is partially due to the lack of studies that performed AK counts before and after treatments,” they said. The dearth of literature on chemical peels for AKs may stem from lack of residency training on the use of peels, they added.

However, the results support the use of chemical peels as an effective option for field treatment of AKs, with the added benefits of convenience and cost-effectiveness for patients, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has unanimously voted to recommend universal hepatitis B (HBV) immunization in all unvaccinated adults aged 59 years or younger. The group also voted to expand recommendations for vaccinating people at risk for occupational exposure to Ebola and to recommend Jynneos, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, for at-risk populations.

The recommendations were approved Nov. 3.

Previously, ACIP recommended HBV vaccination for unvaccinated adults at increased risk for infection because of sexual exposure, percutaneous or mucosal exposure to blood, hepatitis C infection, chronic liver disease, end-stage renal disease, HIV infection, and travel to areas with high to intermediate levels of HBV infection. But experts agreed a new strategy was needed, as previously falling rates of HBV have plateaued. “The past decade has illustrated that risk-based screening has got us as far as it can take us,” Mark Weng, MD, a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Public Health Service and lead of the ACIP Hepatitis Vaccine Working Group, said during the meeting.

There are 1.9 million people living with chronic HBV in the United States, with over 20,000 new acute infections every year. Rates are highest among those in their 40s and 50s, Dr. Weng noted.

The group debated whether to apply the universal recommendation to all ages, but in a close vote (eight yes, seven no), ACIP included an age cutoff of 59. The majority argued that adults 60 and older are at lower risk for infection and vaccination efforts targeting younger adults would be more effective. Those 60 and older would continue to follow the risk-based guidelines, but anyone, regardless of age, can receive the vaccine if they wish to be protected, the group added.

The CDC director as well as several professional societies need to approve the recommendation before it becomes public policy.

ACIP also voted to recommend the following:

• Adding updated recommendations to the 2022 immunization schedules for children, adolescents, and adults, including dengue vaccination for children aged 9-16 years in endemic areas and in adults over 65 and those aged 19-64 with certain chronic conditions.
• The use of Jynneos, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, as an alternative to ACAM2000 for those at risk for occupational exposure.
• Pre-exposure vaccination of health care personnel involved in the transport and treatment of suspected Ebola patients at special treatment centers, or lab and support staff working with or handling specimens that may contain the Ebola virus.

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

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has unanimously voted to recommend universal hepatitis B (HBV) immunization in all unvaccinated adults aged 59 years or younger. The group also voted to expand recommendations for vaccinating people at risk for occupational exposure to Ebola and to recommend Jynneos, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, for at-risk populations.

The recommendations were approved Nov. 3.

Previously, ACIP recommended HBV vaccination for unvaccinated adults at increased risk for infection because of sexual exposure, percutaneous or mucosal exposure to blood, hepatitis C infection, chronic liver disease, end-stage renal disease, HIV infection, and travel to areas with high to intermediate levels of HBV infection. But experts agreed a new strategy was needed, as previously falling rates of HBV have plateaued. “The past decade has illustrated that risk-based screening has got us as far as it can take us,” Mark Weng, MD, a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Public Health Service and lead of the ACIP Hepatitis Vaccine Working Group, said during the meeting.

There are 1.9 million people living with chronic HBV in the United States, with over 20,000 new acute infections every year. Rates are highest among those in their 40s and 50s, Dr. Weng noted.

The group debated whether to apply the universal recommendation to all ages, but in a close vote (eight yes, seven no), ACIP included an age cutoff of 59. The majority argued that adults 60 and older are at lower risk for infection and vaccination efforts targeting younger adults would be more effective. Those 60 and older would continue to follow the risk-based guidelines, but anyone, regardless of age, can receive the vaccine if they wish to be protected, the group added.

The CDC director as well as several professional societies need to approve the recommendation before it becomes public policy.

ACIP also voted to recommend the following:

• Adding updated recommendations to the 2022 immunization schedules for children, adolescents, and adults, including dengue vaccination for children aged 9-16 years in endemic areas and in adults over 65 and those aged 19-64 with certain chronic conditions.
• The use of Jynneos, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, as an alternative to ACAM2000 for those at risk for occupational exposure.
• Pre-exposure vaccination of health care personnel involved in the transport and treatment of suspected Ebola patients at special treatment centers, or lab and support staff working with or handling specimens that may contain the Ebola virus.

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

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has unanimously voted to recommend universal hepatitis B (HBV) immunization in all unvaccinated adults aged 59 years or younger. The group also voted to expand recommendations for vaccinating people at risk for occupational exposure to Ebola and to recommend Jynneos, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, for at-risk populations.

The recommendations were approved Nov. 3.

Previously, ACIP recommended HBV vaccination for unvaccinated adults at increased risk for infection because of sexual exposure, percutaneous or mucosal exposure to blood, hepatitis C infection, chronic liver disease, end-stage renal disease, HIV infection, and travel to areas with high to intermediate levels of HBV infection. But experts agreed a new strategy was needed, as previously falling rates of HBV have plateaued. “The past decade has illustrated that risk-based screening has got us as far as it can take us,” Mark Weng, MD, a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Public Health Service and lead of the ACIP Hepatitis Vaccine Working Group, said during the meeting.

There are 1.9 million people living with chronic HBV in the United States, with over 20,000 new acute infections every year. Rates are highest among those in their 40s and 50s, Dr. Weng noted.

The group debated whether to apply the universal recommendation to all ages, but in a close vote (eight yes, seven no), ACIP included an age cutoff of 59. The majority argued that adults 60 and older are at lower risk for infection and vaccination efforts targeting younger adults would be more effective. Those 60 and older would continue to follow the risk-based guidelines, but anyone, regardless of age, can receive the vaccine if they wish to be protected, the group added.

The CDC director as well as several professional societies need to approve the recommendation before it becomes public policy.

ACIP also voted to recommend the following:

• Adding updated recommendations to the 2022 immunization schedules for children, adolescents, and adults, including dengue vaccination for children aged 9-16 years in endemic areas and in adults over 65 and those aged 19-64 with certain chronic conditions.
• The use of Jynneos, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, as an alternative to ACAM2000 for those at risk for occupational exposure.
• Pre-exposure vaccination of health care personnel involved in the transport and treatment of suspected Ebola patients at special treatment centers, or lab and support staff working with or handling specimens that may contain the Ebola virus.

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

The Diagnosis: Linear Lichen Planus

The patient was clinically diagnosed with linear lichen planus and was started on betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% applied once daily with improvement in both the pruritus and appearance at 4-month follow-up. A biopsy was deferred based on the parents’ wishes.

Lichen planus is an inflammatory disorder involving the skin and oral mucosa. Cutaneous lichen planus classically presents as flat-topped, violaceous, pruritic, polygonal papules with overlying fine white or grey lines known as Wickham striae.¹ Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is common, especially in patients with darker skin tones. Expected histologic findings include orthokeratosis, apoptotic keratinocytes, and bandlike lymphocytic infiltration at the dermoepidermal junction.¹

An estimated 5% of cases of cutaneous lichen planus occur in children.² A study of 316 children with lichen planus demonstrated that the classic morphology remained the most common presentation, while the linear variant was present in only 6.9% of pediatric cases.³ Linear lichen planus appears to be more common among children than adults. A study of 36 pediatric cases showed a greater representation of lichen planus in Black children (67% affected vs 21% cohort).²

Cutaneous lichen planus often clears spontaneously in approximately 1 year.⁴ Treatment in children primarily is focused on shortening the time to resolution and relieving pruritus, with topical corticosteroids as firstline therapy.^3,4 Oral corticosteroids have a faster clinical response; greater efficacy; and more effectively prevent residual hyperpigmentation, which is especially relevant in individuals with darker skin.³ Nonetheless, oral corticosteroids are considered a second-line treatment due to their unfavorable side-effect profile. Additional treatment options include oral aromatic retinoids (acitretin) and phototherapy.³

Incontinentia pigmenti is characterized by a defect in the inhibitor of nuclear factor–κB kinase regulatory subunit gamma, IKBKG, gene on the X chromosome. Incontinentia pigmenti usually is lethal in males; in females, it leads to ectodermal dysplasia associated with skin findings in a blaschkoid distribution occurring in 4 stages.⁵ The verrucous stage is preceded by the vesicular stage and expected to occur within the first few months of life, making it unlikely in our 5-year-old patient. Inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus usually occurs in children younger than 5 years and is characterized by psoriasiform papules coalescing into a plaque with substantial scale instead of Wickham striae, as seen in our patient.⁶ Lichen striatus consists of smaller, pink to flesh-colored papules that rarely are pruritic.⁷ It is more common among atopic individuals and is associated with postinflammatory hypopigmentation.⁸ Linear psoriasis presents similarly to inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus, with greater erythema and scale compared to the fine lacy Wickham striae that were seen in our patient.⁸

The Diagnosis: Linear Lichen Planus

The patient was clinically diagnosed with linear lichen planus and was started on betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% applied once daily with improvement in both the pruritus and appearance at 4-month follow-up. A biopsy was deferred based on the parents’ wishes.

Lichen planus is an inflammatory disorder involving the skin and oral mucosa. Cutaneous lichen planus classically presents as flat-topped, violaceous, pruritic, polygonal papules with overlying fine white or grey lines known as Wickham striae.¹ Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is common, especially in patients with darker skin tones. Expected histologic findings include orthokeratosis, apoptotic keratinocytes, and bandlike lymphocytic infiltration at the dermoepidermal junction.¹

An estimated 5% of cases of cutaneous lichen planus occur in children.² A study of 316 children with lichen planus demonstrated that the classic morphology remained the most common presentation, while the linear variant was present in only 6.9% of pediatric cases.³ Linear lichen planus appears to be more common among children than adults. A study of 36 pediatric cases showed a greater representation of lichen planus in Black children (67% affected vs 21% cohort).²

Cutaneous lichen planus often clears spontaneously in approximately 1 year.⁴ Treatment in children primarily is focused on shortening the time to resolution and relieving pruritus, with topical corticosteroids as firstline therapy.^3,4 Oral corticosteroids have a faster clinical response; greater efficacy; and more effectively prevent residual hyperpigmentation, which is especially relevant in individuals with darker skin.³ Nonetheless, oral corticosteroids are considered a second-line treatment due to their unfavorable side-effect profile. Additional treatment options include oral aromatic retinoids (acitretin) and phototherapy.³

Incontinentia pigmenti is characterized by a defect in the inhibitor of nuclear factor–κB kinase regulatory subunit gamma, IKBKG, gene on the X chromosome. Incontinentia pigmenti usually is lethal in males; in females, it leads to ectodermal dysplasia associated with skin findings in a blaschkoid distribution occurring in 4 stages.⁵ The verrucous stage is preceded by the vesicular stage and expected to occur within the first few months of life, making it unlikely in our 5-year-old patient. Inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus usually occurs in children younger than 5 years and is characterized by psoriasiform papules coalescing into a plaque with substantial scale instead of Wickham striae, as seen in our patient.⁶ Lichen striatus consists of smaller, pink to flesh-colored papules that rarely are pruritic.⁷ It is more common among atopic individuals and is associated with postinflammatory hypopigmentation.⁸ Linear psoriasis presents similarly to inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus, with greater erythema and scale compared to the fine lacy Wickham striae that were seen in our patient.⁸

The Diagnosis: Linear Lichen Planus

The patient was clinically diagnosed with linear lichen planus and was started on betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% applied once daily with improvement in both the pruritus and appearance at 4-month follow-up. A biopsy was deferred based on the parents’ wishes.

Lichen planus is an inflammatory disorder involving the skin and oral mucosa. Cutaneous lichen planus classically presents as flat-topped, violaceous, pruritic, polygonal papules with overlying fine white or grey lines known as Wickham striae.¹ Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is common, especially in patients with darker skin tones. Expected histologic findings include orthokeratosis, apoptotic keratinocytes, and bandlike lymphocytic infiltration at the dermoepidermal junction.¹

An estimated 5% of cases of cutaneous lichen planus occur in children.² A study of 316 children with lichen planus demonstrated that the classic morphology remained the most common presentation, while the linear variant was present in only 6.9% of pediatric cases.³ Linear lichen planus appears to be more common among children than adults. A study of 36 pediatric cases showed a greater representation of lichen planus in Black children (67% affected vs 21% cohort).²

Cutaneous lichen planus often clears spontaneously in approximately 1 year.⁴ Treatment in children primarily is focused on shortening the time to resolution and relieving pruritus, with topical corticosteroids as firstline therapy.^3,4 Oral corticosteroids have a faster clinical response; greater efficacy; and more effectively prevent residual hyperpigmentation, which is especially relevant in individuals with darker skin.³ Nonetheless, oral corticosteroids are considered a second-line treatment due to their unfavorable side-effect profile. Additional treatment options include oral aromatic retinoids (acitretin) and phototherapy.³

Incontinentia pigmenti is characterized by a defect in the inhibitor of nuclear factor–κB kinase regulatory subunit gamma, IKBKG, gene on the X chromosome. Incontinentia pigmenti usually is lethal in males; in females, it leads to ectodermal dysplasia associated with skin findings in a blaschkoid distribution occurring in 4 stages.⁵ The verrucous stage is preceded by the vesicular stage and expected to occur within the first few months of life, making it unlikely in our 5-year-old patient. Inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus usually occurs in children younger than 5 years and is characterized by psoriasiform papules coalescing into a plaque with substantial scale instead of Wickham striae, as seen in our patient.⁶ Lichen striatus consists of smaller, pink to flesh-colored papules that rarely are pruritic.⁷ It is more common among atopic individuals and is associated with postinflammatory hypopigmentation.⁸ Linear psoriasis presents similarly to inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus, with greater erythema and scale compared to the fine lacy Wickham striae that were seen in our patient.⁸

Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.

After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.

“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.

“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.

The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
 

Significant psychological impact

Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.

However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.

Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).

Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.

The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.

The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
 

Dual intervention

After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.

When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.

The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.

Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.

“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.

“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.

“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
 

No cause and effect

Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”

“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.

She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.

At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.

After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.

“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.

“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.

The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
 

Significant psychological impact

Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.

However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.

Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).

Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.

The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.

The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
 

Dual intervention

After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.

When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.

The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.

Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.

“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.

“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.

“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
 

No cause and effect

Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”

“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.

She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.

At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.

After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.

“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.

“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.

The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
 

Significant psychological impact

Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.

However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.

Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).

Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.

The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.

The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
 

Dual intervention

After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.

When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.

The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.

Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.

“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.

“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.

“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
 

No cause and effect

Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”

“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.

She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.

At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatric dermatology is a relatively young subspecialty. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) was established in 1975, followed by the creation of the journal Pediatric Dermatology in 1982 and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Dermatology in 1986.¹ In 2000, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) officially recognized pediatric dermatology as a unique subspecialty of the American Board of Dermatology (ABD). During that time, informal fellowship experiences emerged, and formal 1-year training programs approved by the ABD evolved by 2006. A subspecialty certification examination was created and has been administered every other year since 2004.¹ Data provided by the SPD indicate that approximately 431 US dermatologists have passed the ABD’s pediatric dermatology board certification examination thus far (unpublished data, September 2021).

In 1986, the first systematic evaluation of the US pediatric dermatology workforce revealed a total of 57 practicing pediatric dermatologists and concluded that job opportunities appeared to be limited at that time.² Since then, the demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to grow steadily, and the number of board-certified pediatric dermatologists practicing in the United States has increased to at least 317 per data from a 2020 survey.³ However, given that there are more than 11,000 board-certified dermatologists in the United States, there continues to be a severe shortage of pediatric dermatologists.¹

Increased Demand for Pediatric Dermatologists

Approximately 10% to 30% of almost 200 million annual outpatient pediatric primary care visits involve a skin concern. Although many of these problems can be handled by primary care physicians, more than 80% of pediatricians report having difficulty accessing dermatology services for their patients.⁴ In surveys of pediatricians, pediatric dermatology has the third highest referral rate but has consistently ranked third among the specialties deemed most difficult to access.^5-7 In addition, it is not uncommon for the wait time to see a pediatric dermatologist to be 6 weeks or longer.^5,8

Recent population data estimate that there are 73 million children living in the United States.⁹ If there are roughly 317 practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists, that translates into approximately 4.3 pediatric dermatologists per million children. This number is far smaller than the 4 general dermatologists per 100,000 individuals recommended by Glazer et al¹⁰ in 2017. To meet this suggested ratio goal, the workforce of pediatric dermatologists would have to increase to 2920. In addition to this severe workforce shortage, there is an additional problem with geographic maldistribution of pediatric dermatologists. More than 98% of pediatric dermatologists practice in metropolitan areas. At least 8 states and 95% of counties have no pediatric dermatologist, and there are no pediatric dermatologists practicing in rural counties.⁹ This disparity has considerable implications for barriers to care and lack of access for children living in underserved areas. Suggestions for attracting pediatric dermatologists to practice in these areas have included loan forgiveness programs as well as remote mentorship programs to provide professional support.^8,9

Training in Pediatrics

There currently are 38 ABD-approved pediatric dermatology fellowship training programs in the United States. Beginning in 2009, pediatric dermatology fellowship programs have participated in the SF Match program. Data provided by the SPD show that, since 2012, up to 27 programs have participated in the annual Match, offering a total number of positions ranging from 27 to 38; however, only 11 to 21 positions have been filled each year, leaving a large number of post-Match vacancies (unpublished data, September 2021).

Surveys have explored the reasons behind this lack of interest in pediatric dermatology training among dermatology residents. Factors that have been mentioned include lack of exposure and mentorship in medical school and residency, the financial hardship of an additional year of fellowship training, and historically lower salaries for pediatric dermatologists compared to general dermatologists.^3,6

A 2004 survey revealed that more than 75% of dermatology department chairs believed it was important to have a pediatric dermatologist on the faculty; however, at that time only 48% of dermatology programs reported having at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatology faculty member.¹¹ By 2008, a follow-up survey showed an increase to 70% of dermatology training programs reporting at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatologist; however, 43% of departments still had at least 1 open position, and 76% of those programs shared that they had been searching for more than 1 year.² Currently, the Accreditation Data System of the ACGME shows a total of 144 accredited US dermatology training programs. Of those, 117 programs have 1 or more board-certified pediatric dermatology faculty member, and 27 programs still have none (unpublished data, September 2021).

A shortage of pediatric dermatologists in training programs contributes to the lack of exposure and mentorship for medical students and residents during a critical time in professional development. Studies show that up to 91% of pediatric dermatologists decided to pursue training in pediatric dermatology during medical school, pediatrics residency, or dermatology residency. In one survey, 84% of respondents (N=109) cited early mentorship as the most important factor in their decision to pursue pediatric dermatology.⁶

A lack of pediatric dermatologists also results in suboptimal dermatology training for residents who care for children in primary care specialties, including pediatrics, combined internal medicine and pediatrics, and family practice. Multiple surveys have shown that many pediatricians feel they received inadequate training in dermatology during residency. Up to 38% have cited a need for more pediatric dermatology education (N=755).^5,6 In addition, studies show a wide disparity in diagnostic accuracy between dermatologists and pediatricians, with one concluding that more than one-third of referrals to pediatric dermatologists were initially misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly treated.^5,7

Recruitment Efforts for Pediatric Dermatologists

There are multiple strategies for recruiting trainees into the pediatric dermatology workforce. First, given the importance of early exposure to the field and role models/mentors, pediatric dermatologists must take advantage of every opportunity to interact with medical students and residents. They can share their genuine enthusiasm and love for the specialty while encouraging and supporting those who show interest. They also should seek opportunities for teaching, lecturing, and advising at every level of training. In addition, they can enhance visibility of the specialty by participating in career forums and/or assuming leadership roles within their departments or institutions.¹² Another suggestion is for dermatology training programs to consider giving priority to qualified applicants who express sincere interest in pursuing pediatric dermatology training (including those who have already completed pediatrics residency). Although a 2008 survey revealed that 39% of dermatology residency programs (N=80) favored giving priority to applicants demonstrating interest in pediatric dermatology, others were against it, citing issues such as lack of funding for additional residency training, lack of pediatric dermatology mentors within the program, and an overall mistrust of applicants’ sincerity.²

Final Thoughts

The subspecialty of pediatric dermatology has experienced remarkable growth over the last 40 years; however, demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to outpace supply, resulting in a persistent and notable workforce shortage. Overall, the current supply of pediatric dermatologists can neither meet the clinical demands of the pediatric population nor fulfill academic needs of existing training programs. We must continue to develop novel strategies for increasing the pool of students and residents who are interested in pursuing careers in pediatric dermatology. Ultimately, we also must create incentives and develop tactics to address the geographic maldistribution that exists within the specialty.

Pediatric dermatology is a relatively young subspecialty. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) was established in 1975, followed by the creation of the journal Pediatric Dermatology in 1982 and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Dermatology in 1986.¹ In 2000, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) officially recognized pediatric dermatology as a unique subspecialty of the American Board of Dermatology (ABD). During that time, informal fellowship experiences emerged, and formal 1-year training programs approved by the ABD evolved by 2006. A subspecialty certification examination was created and has been administered every other year since 2004.¹ Data provided by the SPD indicate that approximately 431 US dermatologists have passed the ABD’s pediatric dermatology board certification examination thus far (unpublished data, September 2021).

In 1986, the first systematic evaluation of the US pediatric dermatology workforce revealed a total of 57 practicing pediatric dermatologists and concluded that job opportunities appeared to be limited at that time.² Since then, the demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to grow steadily, and the number of board-certified pediatric dermatologists practicing in the United States has increased to at least 317 per data from a 2020 survey.³ However, given that there are more than 11,000 board-certified dermatologists in the United States, there continues to be a severe shortage of pediatric dermatologists.¹

Increased Demand for Pediatric Dermatologists

Approximately 10% to 30% of almost 200 million annual outpatient pediatric primary care visits involve a skin concern. Although many of these problems can be handled by primary care physicians, more than 80% of pediatricians report having difficulty accessing dermatology services for their patients.⁴ In surveys of pediatricians, pediatric dermatology has the third highest referral rate but has consistently ranked third among the specialties deemed most difficult to access.^5-7 In addition, it is not uncommon for the wait time to see a pediatric dermatologist to be 6 weeks or longer.^5,8

Recent population data estimate that there are 73 million children living in the United States.⁹ If there are roughly 317 practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists, that translates into approximately 4.3 pediatric dermatologists per million children. This number is far smaller than the 4 general dermatologists per 100,000 individuals recommended by Glazer et al¹⁰ in 2017. To meet this suggested ratio goal, the workforce of pediatric dermatologists would have to increase to 2920. In addition to this severe workforce shortage, there is an additional problem with geographic maldistribution of pediatric dermatologists. More than 98% of pediatric dermatologists practice in metropolitan areas. At least 8 states and 95% of counties have no pediatric dermatologist, and there are no pediatric dermatologists practicing in rural counties.⁹ This disparity has considerable implications for barriers to care and lack of access for children living in underserved areas. Suggestions for attracting pediatric dermatologists to practice in these areas have included loan forgiveness programs as well as remote mentorship programs to provide professional support.^8,9

Training in Pediatrics

There currently are 38 ABD-approved pediatric dermatology fellowship training programs in the United States. Beginning in 2009, pediatric dermatology fellowship programs have participated in the SF Match program. Data provided by the SPD show that, since 2012, up to 27 programs have participated in the annual Match, offering a total number of positions ranging from 27 to 38; however, only 11 to 21 positions have been filled each year, leaving a large number of post-Match vacancies (unpublished data, September 2021).

Surveys have explored the reasons behind this lack of interest in pediatric dermatology training among dermatology residents. Factors that have been mentioned include lack of exposure and mentorship in medical school and residency, the financial hardship of an additional year of fellowship training, and historically lower salaries for pediatric dermatologists compared to general dermatologists.^3,6

A 2004 survey revealed that more than 75% of dermatology department chairs believed it was important to have a pediatric dermatologist on the faculty; however, at that time only 48% of dermatology programs reported having at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatology faculty member.¹¹ By 2008, a follow-up survey showed an increase to 70% of dermatology training programs reporting at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatologist; however, 43% of departments still had at least 1 open position, and 76% of those programs shared that they had been searching for more than 1 year.² Currently, the Accreditation Data System of the ACGME shows a total of 144 accredited US dermatology training programs. Of those, 117 programs have 1 or more board-certified pediatric dermatology faculty member, and 27 programs still have none (unpublished data, September 2021).

A shortage of pediatric dermatologists in training programs contributes to the lack of exposure and mentorship for medical students and residents during a critical time in professional development. Studies show that up to 91% of pediatric dermatologists decided to pursue training in pediatric dermatology during medical school, pediatrics residency, or dermatology residency. In one survey, 84% of respondents (N=109) cited early mentorship as the most important factor in their decision to pursue pediatric dermatology.⁶

A lack of pediatric dermatologists also results in suboptimal dermatology training for residents who care for children in primary care specialties, including pediatrics, combined internal medicine and pediatrics, and family practice. Multiple surveys have shown that many pediatricians feel they received inadequate training in dermatology during residency. Up to 38% have cited a need for more pediatric dermatology education (N=755).^5,6 In addition, studies show a wide disparity in diagnostic accuracy between dermatologists and pediatricians, with one concluding that more than one-third of referrals to pediatric dermatologists were initially misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly treated.^5,7

Recruitment Efforts for Pediatric Dermatologists

There are multiple strategies for recruiting trainees into the pediatric dermatology workforce. First, given the importance of early exposure to the field and role models/mentors, pediatric dermatologists must take advantage of every opportunity to interact with medical students and residents. They can share their genuine enthusiasm and love for the specialty while encouraging and supporting those who show interest. They also should seek opportunities for teaching, lecturing, and advising at every level of training. In addition, they can enhance visibility of the specialty by participating in career forums and/or assuming leadership roles within their departments or institutions.¹² Another suggestion is for dermatology training programs to consider giving priority to qualified applicants who express sincere interest in pursuing pediatric dermatology training (including those who have already completed pediatrics residency). Although a 2008 survey revealed that 39% of dermatology residency programs (N=80) favored giving priority to applicants demonstrating interest in pediatric dermatology, others were against it, citing issues such as lack of funding for additional residency training, lack of pediatric dermatology mentors within the program, and an overall mistrust of applicants’ sincerity.²

Final Thoughts

The subspecialty of pediatric dermatology has experienced remarkable growth over the last 40 years; however, demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to outpace supply, resulting in a persistent and notable workforce shortage. Overall, the current supply of pediatric dermatologists can neither meet the clinical demands of the pediatric population nor fulfill academic needs of existing training programs. We must continue to develop novel strategies for increasing the pool of students and residents who are interested in pursuing careers in pediatric dermatology. Ultimately, we also must create incentives and develop tactics to address the geographic maldistribution that exists within the specialty.

Pediatric dermatology is a relatively young subspecialty. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) was established in 1975, followed by the creation of the journal Pediatric Dermatology in 1982 and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Dermatology in 1986.¹ In 2000, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) officially recognized pediatric dermatology as a unique subspecialty of the American Board of Dermatology (ABD). During that time, informal fellowship experiences emerged, and formal 1-year training programs approved by the ABD evolved by 2006. A subspecialty certification examination was created and has been administered every other year since 2004.¹ Data provided by the SPD indicate that approximately 431 US dermatologists have passed the ABD’s pediatric dermatology board certification examination thus far (unpublished data, September 2021).

In 1986, the first systematic evaluation of the US pediatric dermatology workforce revealed a total of 57 practicing pediatric dermatologists and concluded that job opportunities appeared to be limited at that time.² Since then, the demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to grow steadily, and the number of board-certified pediatric dermatologists practicing in the United States has increased to at least 317 per data from a 2020 survey.³ However, given that there are more than 11,000 board-certified dermatologists in the United States, there continues to be a severe shortage of pediatric dermatologists.¹

Increased Demand for Pediatric Dermatologists

Approximately 10% to 30% of almost 200 million annual outpatient pediatric primary care visits involve a skin concern. Although many of these problems can be handled by primary care physicians, more than 80% of pediatricians report having difficulty accessing dermatology services for their patients.⁴ In surveys of pediatricians, pediatric dermatology has the third highest referral rate but has consistently ranked third among the specialties deemed most difficult to access.^5-7 In addition, it is not uncommon for the wait time to see a pediatric dermatologist to be 6 weeks or longer.^5,8

Recent population data estimate that there are 73 million children living in the United States.⁹ If there are roughly 317 practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists, that translates into approximately 4.3 pediatric dermatologists per million children. This number is far smaller than the 4 general dermatologists per 100,000 individuals recommended by Glazer et al¹⁰ in 2017. To meet this suggested ratio goal, the workforce of pediatric dermatologists would have to increase to 2920. In addition to this severe workforce shortage, there is an additional problem with geographic maldistribution of pediatric dermatologists. More than 98% of pediatric dermatologists practice in metropolitan areas. At least 8 states and 95% of counties have no pediatric dermatologist, and there are no pediatric dermatologists practicing in rural counties.⁹ This disparity has considerable implications for barriers to care and lack of access for children living in underserved areas. Suggestions for attracting pediatric dermatologists to practice in these areas have included loan forgiveness programs as well as remote mentorship programs to provide professional support.^8,9

Training in Pediatrics

There currently are 38 ABD-approved pediatric dermatology fellowship training programs in the United States. Beginning in 2009, pediatric dermatology fellowship programs have participated in the SF Match program. Data provided by the SPD show that, since 2012, up to 27 programs have participated in the annual Match, offering a total number of positions ranging from 27 to 38; however, only 11 to 21 positions have been filled each year, leaving a large number of post-Match vacancies (unpublished data, September 2021).

Surveys have explored the reasons behind this lack of interest in pediatric dermatology training among dermatology residents. Factors that have been mentioned include lack of exposure and mentorship in medical school and residency, the financial hardship of an additional year of fellowship training, and historically lower salaries for pediatric dermatologists compared to general dermatologists.^3,6

A 2004 survey revealed that more than 75% of dermatology department chairs believed it was important to have a pediatric dermatologist on the faculty; however, at that time only 48% of dermatology programs reported having at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatology faculty member.¹¹ By 2008, a follow-up survey showed an increase to 70% of dermatology training programs reporting at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatologist; however, 43% of departments still had at least 1 open position, and 76% of those programs shared that they had been searching for more than 1 year.² Currently, the Accreditation Data System of the ACGME shows a total of 144 accredited US dermatology training programs. Of those, 117 programs have 1 or more board-certified pediatric dermatology faculty member, and 27 programs still have none (unpublished data, September 2021).

A shortage of pediatric dermatologists in training programs contributes to the lack of exposure and mentorship for medical students and residents during a critical time in professional development. Studies show that up to 91% of pediatric dermatologists decided to pursue training in pediatric dermatology during medical school, pediatrics residency, or dermatology residency. In one survey, 84% of respondents (N=109) cited early mentorship as the most important factor in their decision to pursue pediatric dermatology.⁶

A lack of pediatric dermatologists also results in suboptimal dermatology training for residents who care for children in primary care specialties, including pediatrics, combined internal medicine and pediatrics, and family practice. Multiple surveys have shown that many pediatricians feel they received inadequate training in dermatology during residency. Up to 38% have cited a need for more pediatric dermatology education (N=755).^5,6 In addition, studies show a wide disparity in diagnostic accuracy between dermatologists and pediatricians, with one concluding that more than one-third of referrals to pediatric dermatologists were initially misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly treated.^5,7

Recruitment Efforts for Pediatric Dermatologists

There are multiple strategies for recruiting trainees into the pediatric dermatology workforce. First, given the importance of early exposure to the field and role models/mentors, pediatric dermatologists must take advantage of every opportunity to interact with medical students and residents. They can share their genuine enthusiasm and love for the specialty while encouraging and supporting those who show interest. They also should seek opportunities for teaching, lecturing, and advising at every level of training. In addition, they can enhance visibility of the specialty by participating in career forums and/or assuming leadership roles within their departments or institutions.¹² Another suggestion is for dermatology training programs to consider giving priority to qualified applicants who express sincere interest in pursuing pediatric dermatology training (including those who have already completed pediatrics residency). Although a 2008 survey revealed that 39% of dermatology residency programs (N=80) favored giving priority to applicants demonstrating interest in pediatric dermatology, others were against it, citing issues such as lack of funding for additional residency training, lack of pediatric dermatology mentors within the program, and an overall mistrust of applicants’ sincerity.²

Final Thoughts

The subspecialty of pediatric dermatology has experienced remarkable growth over the last 40 years; however, demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to outpace supply, resulting in a persistent and notable workforce shortage. Overall, the current supply of pediatric dermatologists can neither meet the clinical demands of the pediatric population nor fulfill academic needs of existing training programs. We must continue to develop novel strategies for increasing the pool of students and residents who are interested in pursuing careers in pediatric dermatology. Ultimately, we also must create incentives and develop tactics to address the geographic maldistribution that exists within the specialty.