MDedge Dermatology

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Three primary care boards have issued a joint statement backing the Federation of State Medical Boards’ recent statement saying that, if physicians spread misinformation about COVID-19, their medical license could be suspended or revoked.

Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.

“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read. 

“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.

“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
 

Small number spread false information

However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.

Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.

Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.

Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”

This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.

Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.

Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.

Some cited free speech protections.
 

‘Not consistent with standards’

As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”

Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.

“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.

He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”

Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”

He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.

The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”

As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”

The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”

In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.

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

Three primary care boards have issued a joint statement backing the Federation of State Medical Boards’ recent statement saying that, if physicians spread misinformation about COVID-19, their medical license could be suspended or revoked.

Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.

“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read. 

“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.

“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
 

Small number spread false information

However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.

Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.

Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.

Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”

This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.

Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.

Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.

Some cited free speech protections.
 

‘Not consistent with standards’

As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”

Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.

“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.

He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”

Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”

He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.

The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”

As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”

The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”

In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.

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

Three primary care boards have issued a joint statement backing the Federation of State Medical Boards’ recent statement saying that, if physicians spread misinformation about COVID-19, their medical license could be suspended or revoked.

Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.

“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read. 

“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.

“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
 

Small number spread false information

However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.

Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.

Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.

Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”

This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.

Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.

Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.

Some cited free speech protections.
 

‘Not consistent with standards’

As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”

Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.

“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.

He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”

Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”

He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.

The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”

As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”

The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”

In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.

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

Those who are unhappy about losing their hair might be interested to hear about a new approach where scientists use mechanical stimulation to promote hair regrowth.

Currently, Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for hair loss include minoxidil (Rogaine) and finasteride (Propecia). But there are side effects, and the treatments only work when continuously used for an extended time.

Some people may opt instead to have hair follicle transplants, but study coauthor Fangyuan Li, PhD, from the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, explains, the surgery is painful and not always successful because it depends a lot on the quality of donor hair follicles, which can vary.

Seeking to develop a new nonsurgical option, the scientists, led by Jianqing Gao, vice dean of the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Zhejiang University, designed a dissolvable microneedle patch to deliver treatment near hair roots beneath the skin.

Male- or female-pattern baldness can be permanent when there aren’t enough blood vessels surrounding hair follicles to deliver nutrients and other essential molecules. A buildup of reactive oxygen in the scalp can prompt the death of cells that would otherwise grow new hair.

In a previous investigation, the researchers found that nanoparticles containing cerium, a silvery-white metal, can mimic the enzymes inside the body that can help ease oxidative stress.

The scientists coated cerium nanoparticles with a biodegradable compound. Then they made the microneedle patch by pouring a mixture of hyaluronic acid with cerium-containing nanoparticles into a mold.

The small needles don’t hurt when applied, Dr. Li said, as they deliver treatment to a region under the skin with no pain receptors.

The researchers tested control patches and the cerium-containing ones on male mice with bald spots created by a hair-removal cream. Both applications stimulated new blood vessels to form around the mice hair follicles. But those treated with the nanoparticle patch showed faster signs of hair recuperation at the root.

The mice also had fewer oxidative stress compounds in their skin. Microneedle patch use resulted in faster hair regrowth, compared with a cream-based treatment, and could be applied less frequently.

And though the idea is not yet ready to be tried on people, it represents an inventive step forward in addressing a common problem.

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

Those who are unhappy about losing their hair might be interested to hear about a new approach where scientists use mechanical stimulation to promote hair regrowth.

Currently, Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for hair loss include minoxidil (Rogaine) and finasteride (Propecia). But there are side effects, and the treatments only work when continuously used for an extended time.

Some people may opt instead to have hair follicle transplants, but study coauthor Fangyuan Li, PhD, from the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, explains, the surgery is painful and not always successful because it depends a lot on the quality of donor hair follicles, which can vary.

Seeking to develop a new nonsurgical option, the scientists, led by Jianqing Gao, vice dean of the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Zhejiang University, designed a dissolvable microneedle patch to deliver treatment near hair roots beneath the skin.

Male- or female-pattern baldness can be permanent when there aren’t enough blood vessels surrounding hair follicles to deliver nutrients and other essential molecules. A buildup of reactive oxygen in the scalp can prompt the death of cells that would otherwise grow new hair.

In a previous investigation, the researchers found that nanoparticles containing cerium, a silvery-white metal, can mimic the enzymes inside the body that can help ease oxidative stress.

The scientists coated cerium nanoparticles with a biodegradable compound. Then they made the microneedle patch by pouring a mixture of hyaluronic acid with cerium-containing nanoparticles into a mold.

The small needles don’t hurt when applied, Dr. Li said, as they deliver treatment to a region under the skin with no pain receptors.

The researchers tested control patches and the cerium-containing ones on male mice with bald spots created by a hair-removal cream. Both applications stimulated new blood vessels to form around the mice hair follicles. But those treated with the nanoparticle patch showed faster signs of hair recuperation at the root.

The mice also had fewer oxidative stress compounds in their skin. Microneedle patch use resulted in faster hair regrowth, compared with a cream-based treatment, and could be applied less frequently.

And though the idea is not yet ready to be tried on people, it represents an inventive step forward in addressing a common problem.

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

Those who are unhappy about losing their hair might be interested to hear about a new approach where scientists use mechanical stimulation to promote hair regrowth.

Currently, Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for hair loss include minoxidil (Rogaine) and finasteride (Propecia). But there are side effects, and the treatments only work when continuously used for an extended time.

Some people may opt instead to have hair follicle transplants, but study coauthor Fangyuan Li, PhD, from the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, explains, the surgery is painful and not always successful because it depends a lot on the quality of donor hair follicles, which can vary.

Seeking to develop a new nonsurgical option, the scientists, led by Jianqing Gao, vice dean of the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Zhejiang University, designed a dissolvable microneedle patch to deliver treatment near hair roots beneath the skin.

Male- or female-pattern baldness can be permanent when there aren’t enough blood vessels surrounding hair follicles to deliver nutrients and other essential molecules. A buildup of reactive oxygen in the scalp can prompt the death of cells that would otherwise grow new hair.

In a previous investigation, the researchers found that nanoparticles containing cerium, a silvery-white metal, can mimic the enzymes inside the body that can help ease oxidative stress.

The scientists coated cerium nanoparticles with a biodegradable compound. Then they made the microneedle patch by pouring a mixture of hyaluronic acid with cerium-containing nanoparticles into a mold.

The small needles don’t hurt when applied, Dr. Li said, as they deliver treatment to a region under the skin with no pain receptors.

The researchers tested control patches and the cerium-containing ones on male mice with bald spots created by a hair-removal cream. Both applications stimulated new blood vessels to form around the mice hair follicles. But those treated with the nanoparticle patch showed faster signs of hair recuperation at the root.

The mice also had fewer oxidative stress compounds in their skin. Microneedle patch use resulted in faster hair regrowth, compared with a cream-based treatment, and could be applied less frequently.

And though the idea is not yet ready to be tried on people, it represents an inventive step forward in addressing a common problem.

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

The Diagnosis: Primary Cutaneous Carcinosarcoma

The immunohistochemical findings supported an epithelial component consistent with moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and a mesenchymal component with features consistent with a sarcoma. Consequently, the lesion was diagnosed as a primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma (PCCS).

Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma is a rare biphasic neoplasm consisting of malignant epithelial (carcinoma) and mesenchymal (sarcoma) components.¹ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcomas are uncommon, poorly understood, primary cutaneous tumors.^2,3 Characteristic of this tumor, cytokeratins highlight the epithelial component while vimentin highlights the mesenchymal component.⁴ Histologically, the sarcomatous components of PCCS often are highly variable, with an absence of transitional areas within the epithelial component, which frequently resembles basal cell carcinoma and/ or SCC.^5-7 Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma favors areas of chronic UV radiation exposure, particularly on the head and neck. Most tumors present with a slowly growing, polypoid, flesh-colored to erythematous nodule due to the infiltrative mesenchymal component.⁷ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma primarily is diagnosed in elderly patients, with the majority of cases diagnosed in the eighth or ninth decades of life (range, 32–98 years).^1,8 Men appear to be twice as likely to be diagnosed with a PCCS compared to women.¹ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcomas are recognized as aggressive tumors with a high propensity to metastasize and recur locally, necessitating early diagnosis and treatment.⁴ Accurate diagnosis of PCCSs can be challenging due to the biphasic nature of the neoplasm as well as poor differentiation or unequal proportions of the epithelial and mesenchymal components.⁵ Additionally, overlapping diagnostic criteria coupled with vague demarcation between soft-tissue sarcomas and distinct carcinomas also may contribute to a delay in diagnosis.⁹ Treatment is achieved surgically by complete wide resection, with no evidence to support the use of adjuvant or neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Due to the small number of reported cases, no treatment recommendations currently exist.¹

Surgical management with wide local excision has been disappointing, with recurrence rates reported as high as 33%.⁶ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma has an estimated overall recurrence rate of 19% and a 5-year disease-free rate of 50%.¹⁰ Risk factors associated with poorer prognosis include tumors with adnexal subtype, age less than 65 years, rapid tumor growth, a tumor greater than 20 mm at presentation, and a long-standing tumor lasting up to 30 years.^2,4 Although wide local excision and Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) both have been utilized successfully, MMS has been shown to result in a cure rate of greater than 98%.⁶

Atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) is a cutaneous tumor of fibrohistiocytic mesenchymal origin that typically manifests on sun-damaged skin in elderly individuals. Clinically, it presents as a rapidly growing neoplasm that often ulcerates and bleeds. These heterogenous neoplasms have several distinct characteristics, including dense cellularity with disorganized, large, pleomorphic, and atypical-appearing spindle-shaped cells arising in the upper layers of the dermis, often disseminating into the reticular dermis and occasionally into the subcutaneous fat (Figure 1). The neoplastic cells often exhibit hyperchromic and irregular nuclei, multinucleated giant cells, and atypical mitotic figures. In most cases, negative immunohistochemical staining with SOX-10, S-100, cytokeratins, desmin, and caldesmon will allow pathologists to differentiate between AFX and other common tumors on the differential diagnosis, such as SCC, melanoma, and leiomyosarcoma. CD10 and procollagen type 1 are positive antigenic markers in AFX, but they are not specific. The standard treatment of AFX includes wide local excision or MMS for superior margin control.¹¹

Spindle cell SCC presents as a raised or exophytic nodule, often with spontaneous bleeding and central ulceration. It usually presents on sun-damaged skin or in individuals with a history of ionizing radiation. Histologically, it is characterized by atypical spindleshaped keratinocytes in the dermis existing as single cells or cohesive nests along with keratin pearls (Figure 2). The atypical spindle cells may comprise the entire tumor or only a small portion. The use of immunohistochemical markers often is required to establish a definitive diagnosis. Spindle cell SCC stains positively, albeit frequently focally, for p63, p40, and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins such as cytokeratin 5/6, while S-100 protein, SOX-10, MART-1/Melan-A, and muscle-specific actin stains typically are negative. Wide local excision or MMS is recommended for treatment of these lesions.¹²

Primary cutaneous myoepithelial carcinomas are uncommon neoplasms of myoepithelial differentiation. Clinically, they often arise as soft nodular lesions on the head, neck, and lower extremities with a bimodal age distribution (50 years). Histologically cutaneous myoepithelial tumors are well-differentiated, dermal-based nodules without connection to the overlying epidermis (Figure 3). The myoepithelial cells can exhibit spindled, epithelioid, plasmacytoid, or clear cell morphologic features and show variability in cell growth patterns. One of the most common growth patterns is oval to round cells forming cords and chains in a chondromyxoid stroma. Most cases display an immunophenotyped co-expression of an epithelial cytokeratin and S-100 protein. Myoepithelial markers also may be present, including keratins, smooth muscle actin, calponin, glial fibrillary acidic protein, p63, and desmin. Surgical removal with wide local excision or MMS is essential.¹³

Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is a tumor that originates from smooth muscle and rarely develops in the dermis.¹⁴ Pleomorphic LMS is a morphologic variant of LMS that has a low propensity to metastasize but commonly exhibits local recurrence.¹⁵ Leiomyosarcoma can present in any age group but most commonly manifests in individuals aged 50 to 70 years. Clinically, LMS presents as a firm solitary nodule with a smooth pink surface or a more exophytic tumor with a reddish or brown color on the extensor surface of the lower limbs; it is less common on the scalp and face.¹⁴ Histologically, most cases of pleomorphic LMS show small foci of fascicles consisting of smooth muscle tumor cells in addition to cellular pleomorphism (Figure 4).¹⁵ Many of these cells demonstrate a clear perinuclear vacuole that generally is appreciated in neoplastic smooth muscle cells.¹⁴ Pleomorphic LMS typically stains positively for at least one smooth muscle marker including desmin, h-caldesmon, muscle-specific actin, α-smooth muscle actin, or smooth muscle myosin in the leiomyosarcomatous fascicular areas.¹⁶ Complete surgical excision is the treatment of choice, and the best results are obtained with MMS.¹⁴

The Diagnosis: Primary Cutaneous Carcinosarcoma

The immunohistochemical findings supported an epithelial component consistent with moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and a mesenchymal component with features consistent with a sarcoma. Consequently, the lesion was diagnosed as a primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma (PCCS).

Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma is a rare biphasic neoplasm consisting of malignant epithelial (carcinoma) and mesenchymal (sarcoma) components.¹ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcomas are uncommon, poorly understood, primary cutaneous tumors.^2,3 Characteristic of this tumor, cytokeratins highlight the epithelial component while vimentin highlights the mesenchymal component.⁴ Histologically, the sarcomatous components of PCCS often are highly variable, with an absence of transitional areas within the epithelial component, which frequently resembles basal cell carcinoma and/ or SCC.^5-7 Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma favors areas of chronic UV radiation exposure, particularly on the head and neck. Most tumors present with a slowly growing, polypoid, flesh-colored to erythematous nodule due to the infiltrative mesenchymal component.⁷ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma primarily is diagnosed in elderly patients, with the majority of cases diagnosed in the eighth or ninth decades of life (range, 32–98 years).^1,8 Men appear to be twice as likely to be diagnosed with a PCCS compared to women.¹ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcomas are recognized as aggressive tumors with a high propensity to metastasize and recur locally, necessitating early diagnosis and treatment.⁴ Accurate diagnosis of PCCSs can be challenging due to the biphasic nature of the neoplasm as well as poor differentiation or unequal proportions of the epithelial and mesenchymal components.⁵ Additionally, overlapping diagnostic criteria coupled with vague demarcation between soft-tissue sarcomas and distinct carcinomas also may contribute to a delay in diagnosis.⁹ Treatment is achieved surgically by complete wide resection, with no evidence to support the use of adjuvant or neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Due to the small number of reported cases, no treatment recommendations currently exist.¹

Surgical management with wide local excision has been disappointing, with recurrence rates reported as high as 33%.⁶ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma has an estimated overall recurrence rate of 19% and a 5-year disease-free rate of 50%.¹⁰ Risk factors associated with poorer prognosis include tumors with adnexal subtype, age less than 65 years, rapid tumor growth, a tumor greater than 20 mm at presentation, and a long-standing tumor lasting up to 30 years.^2,4 Although wide local excision and Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) both have been utilized successfully, MMS has been shown to result in a cure rate of greater than 98%.⁶

Atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) is a cutaneous tumor of fibrohistiocytic mesenchymal origin that typically manifests on sun-damaged skin in elderly individuals. Clinically, it presents as a rapidly growing neoplasm that often ulcerates and bleeds. These heterogenous neoplasms have several distinct characteristics, including dense cellularity with disorganized, large, pleomorphic, and atypical-appearing spindle-shaped cells arising in the upper layers of the dermis, often disseminating into the reticular dermis and occasionally into the subcutaneous fat (Figure 1). The neoplastic cells often exhibit hyperchromic and irregular nuclei, multinucleated giant cells, and atypical mitotic figures. In most cases, negative immunohistochemical staining with SOX-10, S-100, cytokeratins, desmin, and caldesmon will allow pathologists to differentiate between AFX and other common tumors on the differential diagnosis, such as SCC, melanoma, and leiomyosarcoma. CD10 and procollagen type 1 are positive antigenic markers in AFX, but they are not specific. The standard treatment of AFX includes wide local excision or MMS for superior margin control.¹¹

Spindle cell SCC presents as a raised or exophytic nodule, often with spontaneous bleeding and central ulceration. It usually presents on sun-damaged skin or in individuals with a history of ionizing radiation. Histologically, it is characterized by atypical spindleshaped keratinocytes in the dermis existing as single cells or cohesive nests along with keratin pearls (Figure 2). The atypical spindle cells may comprise the entire tumor or only a small portion. The use of immunohistochemical markers often is required to establish a definitive diagnosis. Spindle cell SCC stains positively, albeit frequently focally, for p63, p40, and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins such as cytokeratin 5/6, while S-100 protein, SOX-10, MART-1/Melan-A, and muscle-specific actin stains typically are negative. Wide local excision or MMS is recommended for treatment of these lesions.¹²

Primary cutaneous myoepithelial carcinomas are uncommon neoplasms of myoepithelial differentiation. Clinically, they often arise as soft nodular lesions on the head, neck, and lower extremities with a bimodal age distribution (50 years). Histologically cutaneous myoepithelial tumors are well-differentiated, dermal-based nodules without connection to the overlying epidermis (Figure 3). The myoepithelial cells can exhibit spindled, epithelioid, plasmacytoid, or clear cell morphologic features and show variability in cell growth patterns. One of the most common growth patterns is oval to round cells forming cords and chains in a chondromyxoid stroma. Most cases display an immunophenotyped co-expression of an epithelial cytokeratin and S-100 protein. Myoepithelial markers also may be present, including keratins, smooth muscle actin, calponin, glial fibrillary acidic protein, p63, and desmin. Surgical removal with wide local excision or MMS is essential.¹³

Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is a tumor that originates from smooth muscle and rarely develops in the dermis.¹⁴ Pleomorphic LMS is a morphologic variant of LMS that has a low propensity to metastasize but commonly exhibits local recurrence.¹⁵ Leiomyosarcoma can present in any age group but most commonly manifests in individuals aged 50 to 70 years. Clinically, LMS presents as a firm solitary nodule with a smooth pink surface or a more exophytic tumor with a reddish or brown color on the extensor surface of the lower limbs; it is less common on the scalp and face.¹⁴ Histologically, most cases of pleomorphic LMS show small foci of fascicles consisting of smooth muscle tumor cells in addition to cellular pleomorphism (Figure 4).¹⁵ Many of these cells demonstrate a clear perinuclear vacuole that generally is appreciated in neoplastic smooth muscle cells.¹⁴ Pleomorphic LMS typically stains positively for at least one smooth muscle marker including desmin, h-caldesmon, muscle-specific actin, α-smooth muscle actin, or smooth muscle myosin in the leiomyosarcomatous fascicular areas.¹⁶ Complete surgical excision is the treatment of choice, and the best results are obtained with MMS.¹⁴

The Diagnosis: Primary Cutaneous Carcinosarcoma

The immunohistochemical findings supported an epithelial component consistent with moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and a mesenchymal component with features consistent with a sarcoma. Consequently, the lesion was diagnosed as a primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma (PCCS).

Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma is a rare biphasic neoplasm consisting of malignant epithelial (carcinoma) and mesenchymal (sarcoma) components.¹ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcomas are uncommon, poorly understood, primary cutaneous tumors.^2,3 Characteristic of this tumor, cytokeratins highlight the epithelial component while vimentin highlights the mesenchymal component.⁴ Histologically, the sarcomatous components of PCCS often are highly variable, with an absence of transitional areas within the epithelial component, which frequently resembles basal cell carcinoma and/ or SCC.^5-7 Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma favors areas of chronic UV radiation exposure, particularly on the head and neck. Most tumors present with a slowly growing, polypoid, flesh-colored to erythematous nodule due to the infiltrative mesenchymal component.⁷ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma primarily is diagnosed in elderly patients, with the majority of cases diagnosed in the eighth or ninth decades of life (range, 32–98 years).^1,8 Men appear to be twice as likely to be diagnosed with a PCCS compared to women.¹ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcomas are recognized as aggressive tumors with a high propensity to metastasize and recur locally, necessitating early diagnosis and treatment.⁴ Accurate diagnosis of PCCSs can be challenging due to the biphasic nature of the neoplasm as well as poor differentiation or unequal proportions of the epithelial and mesenchymal components.⁵ Additionally, overlapping diagnostic criteria coupled with vague demarcation between soft-tissue sarcomas and distinct carcinomas also may contribute to a delay in diagnosis.⁹ Treatment is achieved surgically by complete wide resection, with no evidence to support the use of adjuvant or neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Due to the small number of reported cases, no treatment recommendations currently exist.¹

Surgical management with wide local excision has been disappointing, with recurrence rates reported as high as 33%.⁶ Primary cutaneous carcinosarcoma has an estimated overall recurrence rate of 19% and a 5-year disease-free rate of 50%.¹⁰ Risk factors associated with poorer prognosis include tumors with adnexal subtype, age less than 65 years, rapid tumor growth, a tumor greater than 20 mm at presentation, and a long-standing tumor lasting up to 30 years.^2,4 Although wide local excision and Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) both have been utilized successfully, MMS has been shown to result in a cure rate of greater than 98%.⁶

Atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) is a cutaneous tumor of fibrohistiocytic mesenchymal origin that typically manifests on sun-damaged skin in elderly individuals. Clinically, it presents as a rapidly growing neoplasm that often ulcerates and bleeds. These heterogenous neoplasms have several distinct characteristics, including dense cellularity with disorganized, large, pleomorphic, and atypical-appearing spindle-shaped cells arising in the upper layers of the dermis, often disseminating into the reticular dermis and occasionally into the subcutaneous fat (Figure 1). The neoplastic cells often exhibit hyperchromic and irregular nuclei, multinucleated giant cells, and atypical mitotic figures. In most cases, negative immunohistochemical staining with SOX-10, S-100, cytokeratins, desmin, and caldesmon will allow pathologists to differentiate between AFX and other common tumors on the differential diagnosis, such as SCC, melanoma, and leiomyosarcoma. CD10 and procollagen type 1 are positive antigenic markers in AFX, but they are not specific. The standard treatment of AFX includes wide local excision or MMS for superior margin control.¹¹

Spindle cell SCC presents as a raised or exophytic nodule, often with spontaneous bleeding and central ulceration. It usually presents on sun-damaged skin or in individuals with a history of ionizing radiation. Histologically, it is characterized by atypical spindleshaped keratinocytes in the dermis existing as single cells or cohesive nests along with keratin pearls (Figure 2). The atypical spindle cells may comprise the entire tumor or only a small portion. The use of immunohistochemical markers often is required to establish a definitive diagnosis. Spindle cell SCC stains positively, albeit frequently focally, for p63, p40, and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins such as cytokeratin 5/6, while S-100 protein, SOX-10, MART-1/Melan-A, and muscle-specific actin stains typically are negative. Wide local excision or MMS is recommended for treatment of these lesions.¹²

Primary cutaneous myoepithelial carcinomas are uncommon neoplasms of myoepithelial differentiation. Clinically, they often arise as soft nodular lesions on the head, neck, and lower extremities with a bimodal age distribution (50 years). Histologically cutaneous myoepithelial tumors are well-differentiated, dermal-based nodules without connection to the overlying epidermis (Figure 3). The myoepithelial cells can exhibit spindled, epithelioid, plasmacytoid, or clear cell morphologic features and show variability in cell growth patterns. One of the most common growth patterns is oval to round cells forming cords and chains in a chondromyxoid stroma. Most cases display an immunophenotyped co-expression of an epithelial cytokeratin and S-100 protein. Myoepithelial markers also may be present, including keratins, smooth muscle actin, calponin, glial fibrillary acidic protein, p63, and desmin. Surgical removal with wide local excision or MMS is essential.¹³

Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is a tumor that originates from smooth muscle and rarely develops in the dermis.¹⁴ Pleomorphic LMS is a morphologic variant of LMS that has a low propensity to metastasize but commonly exhibits local recurrence.¹⁵ Leiomyosarcoma can present in any age group but most commonly manifests in individuals aged 50 to 70 years. Clinically, LMS presents as a firm solitary nodule with a smooth pink surface or a more exophytic tumor with a reddish or brown color on the extensor surface of the lower limbs; it is less common on the scalp and face.¹⁴ Histologically, most cases of pleomorphic LMS show small foci of fascicles consisting of smooth muscle tumor cells in addition to cellular pleomorphism (Figure 4).¹⁵ Many of these cells demonstrate a clear perinuclear vacuole that generally is appreciated in neoplastic smooth muscle cells.¹⁴ Pleomorphic LMS typically stains positively for at least one smooth muscle marker including desmin, h-caldesmon, muscle-specific actin, α-smooth muscle actin, or smooth muscle myosin in the leiomyosarcomatous fascicular areas.¹⁶ Complete surgical excision is the treatment of choice, and the best results are obtained with MMS.¹⁴

For some patients with atopic dermatitis, disease activity may increase into mid-adulthood, and this subtype of AD may be linked with poorer physical and mental health, giving reason to observe patients beyond the pediatric stage, according to a cohort study of more than 30,000 patients.

Early-life environmental factors, such as tobacco smoke exposure, were not reliable predictors of increasing AD into mid-adulthood, suggesting that a patient’s contemporaneous environment may impact disease course throughout life, reported lead author Katrina Abuabara, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of studies that prospectively examine the course of atopic eczema beyond adolescence/early adulthood, and a more comprehensive understanding of disease activity across the life span is needed,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. “Data on long-term disease course may offer insight into mechanisms for disease onset and persistence, are important when counseling patients, and would establish baseline trajectories for future studies of whether new treatments can modify disease course and development of comorbidities.”

The present study included 30,905 patients from two population-based birth cohorts: the 1958 National Childhood Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Follow-up data were collected between 1958 and 2016 via nine waves of standardized questionnaires, and subtypes of atopic eczema patterns were identified “based on parent-reported or self-reported atopic eczema period prevalence.”

This measure “was previously shown to coincide with standardized clinical examinations among children in the NCDS, and a similar questionnaire demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for physician-diagnosed atopic eczema in U.S. populations,” the investigators noted.

Latent class analysis identified four disease subtypes based on probability of reporting prevalent AD into midlife: low (88%-91%), decreasing (4%), increasing (2%-6%), and persistently high (2%-3%) probability.

Next, the investigators looked for associations between these subtypes and established early-life risk factors, such as history of breastfeeding and childhood smoke exposure. None of the childhood environmental factors differentiated between high versus decreasing disease in adulthood, or increasing versus decreasing disease in adulthood. In contrast, female sex predicted the high versus decreasing adult subtype (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.38), and the increasing versus decreasing adult subtype (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.69-2.35).

These findings suggest that “disease trajectory is modifiable and may be influenced by environmental factors throughout life,” the investigators wrote.

Further analysis uncovered associations between adult AD subtypes and other health outcomes. For example, compared with adults in the low probability group, those in the high probability group were significantly more likely to report rhinitis (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.24-3.26) and asthma (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.82-4.21). Adults with the increasing subtype also had elevated rates of asthma and rhinitis, along with worse self-reported mental health at age 42 (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72) and poor general health at age 46/50 (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53).

“When extending the window of observation beyond childhood, clear subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity emerged,” the investigators concluded. “In particular, a newly identified subtype with increasing probability of activity in adulthood warrants additional attention given associations with poor self-reported physical and mental health in midlife.”

Commenting on these results, Robert Sidbury, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that this is an “important study” because it adds to our understanding of natural disease course over time.

This knowledge, as a pediatric dermatologist, will help Dr. Sidbury answer one of the most common questions he hears from parents: When is it going to stop?

“Trying to put a little bit more evidence-based heft behind the answer ... is really important,” he said in an interview.

Based on available data, up to 10% of children with AD may have disease activity into adulthood, according to Dr. Sidbury, who is also chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“I would hazard to guess that most of those adults who have atopic dermatitis – at least the ones who had it in childhood – were told that they would grow out of it,” he said. “And so I think awareness is important – that [resolution with age] does not always happen.”

The findings also support the possibility that AD is a systemic disease, and that underlying immune dysregulation may be linked with serious health consequences later in life, Dr. Sidbury said, noting that “the stakes get higher and higher when you start speculating in that way.”

According to Dr. Sidbury, the reported link between childhood AD and poor midlife health raises questions about how modifiable the disease course may be, particularly in response to earlier intervention with emerging AD medications, which “seem to be much more effective and potent.”

“Will the advent of these medications and their adoption and use in treatment perhaps have a significant impact, not just on the prevention of atopic dermatitis itself, but maybe other comorbidities?” he asked.

For the time being, this question remains unanswered.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Abuabara received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the study, as well as personal fees from Target RWE and Pfizer outside of this study. One author reported receiving NIH grants during the study, another reported receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Innovative Medicine Initiative Horizon 2020 (BIOMAP project) during the study; there were no other disclosures. Dr. Sidbury disclosed relationships with Galderma, Regeneron, and Pfizer.
 

For some patients with atopic dermatitis, disease activity may increase into mid-adulthood, and this subtype of AD may be linked with poorer physical and mental health, giving reason to observe patients beyond the pediatric stage, according to a cohort study of more than 30,000 patients.

Early-life environmental factors, such as tobacco smoke exposure, were not reliable predictors of increasing AD into mid-adulthood, suggesting that a patient’s contemporaneous environment may impact disease course throughout life, reported lead author Katrina Abuabara, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of studies that prospectively examine the course of atopic eczema beyond adolescence/early adulthood, and a more comprehensive understanding of disease activity across the life span is needed,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. “Data on long-term disease course may offer insight into mechanisms for disease onset and persistence, are important when counseling patients, and would establish baseline trajectories for future studies of whether new treatments can modify disease course and development of comorbidities.”

The present study included 30,905 patients from two population-based birth cohorts: the 1958 National Childhood Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Follow-up data were collected between 1958 and 2016 via nine waves of standardized questionnaires, and subtypes of atopic eczema patterns were identified “based on parent-reported or self-reported atopic eczema period prevalence.”

This measure “was previously shown to coincide with standardized clinical examinations among children in the NCDS, and a similar questionnaire demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for physician-diagnosed atopic eczema in U.S. populations,” the investigators noted.

Latent class analysis identified four disease subtypes based on probability of reporting prevalent AD into midlife: low (88%-91%), decreasing (4%), increasing (2%-6%), and persistently high (2%-3%) probability.

Next, the investigators looked for associations between these subtypes and established early-life risk factors, such as history of breastfeeding and childhood smoke exposure. None of the childhood environmental factors differentiated between high versus decreasing disease in adulthood, or increasing versus decreasing disease in adulthood. In contrast, female sex predicted the high versus decreasing adult subtype (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.38), and the increasing versus decreasing adult subtype (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.69-2.35).

These findings suggest that “disease trajectory is modifiable and may be influenced by environmental factors throughout life,” the investigators wrote.

Further analysis uncovered associations between adult AD subtypes and other health outcomes. For example, compared with adults in the low probability group, those in the high probability group were significantly more likely to report rhinitis (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.24-3.26) and asthma (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.82-4.21). Adults with the increasing subtype also had elevated rates of asthma and rhinitis, along with worse self-reported mental health at age 42 (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72) and poor general health at age 46/50 (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53).

“When extending the window of observation beyond childhood, clear subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity emerged,” the investigators concluded. “In particular, a newly identified subtype with increasing probability of activity in adulthood warrants additional attention given associations with poor self-reported physical and mental health in midlife.”

Commenting on these results, Robert Sidbury, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that this is an “important study” because it adds to our understanding of natural disease course over time.

This knowledge, as a pediatric dermatologist, will help Dr. Sidbury answer one of the most common questions he hears from parents: When is it going to stop?

“Trying to put a little bit more evidence-based heft behind the answer ... is really important,” he said in an interview.

Based on available data, up to 10% of children with AD may have disease activity into adulthood, according to Dr. Sidbury, who is also chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“I would hazard to guess that most of those adults who have atopic dermatitis – at least the ones who had it in childhood – were told that they would grow out of it,” he said. “And so I think awareness is important – that [resolution with age] does not always happen.”

The findings also support the possibility that AD is a systemic disease, and that underlying immune dysregulation may be linked with serious health consequences later in life, Dr. Sidbury said, noting that “the stakes get higher and higher when you start speculating in that way.”

According to Dr. Sidbury, the reported link between childhood AD and poor midlife health raises questions about how modifiable the disease course may be, particularly in response to earlier intervention with emerging AD medications, which “seem to be much more effective and potent.”

“Will the advent of these medications and their adoption and use in treatment perhaps have a significant impact, not just on the prevention of atopic dermatitis itself, but maybe other comorbidities?” he asked.

For the time being, this question remains unanswered.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Abuabara received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the study, as well as personal fees from Target RWE and Pfizer outside of this study. One author reported receiving NIH grants during the study, another reported receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Innovative Medicine Initiative Horizon 2020 (BIOMAP project) during the study; there were no other disclosures. Dr. Sidbury disclosed relationships with Galderma, Regeneron, and Pfizer.
 

For some patients with atopic dermatitis, disease activity may increase into mid-adulthood, and this subtype of AD may be linked with poorer physical and mental health, giving reason to observe patients beyond the pediatric stage, according to a cohort study of more than 30,000 patients.

Early-life environmental factors, such as tobacco smoke exposure, were not reliable predictors of increasing AD into mid-adulthood, suggesting that a patient’s contemporaneous environment may impact disease course throughout life, reported lead author Katrina Abuabara, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of studies that prospectively examine the course of atopic eczema beyond adolescence/early adulthood, and a more comprehensive understanding of disease activity across the life span is needed,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. “Data on long-term disease course may offer insight into mechanisms for disease onset and persistence, are important when counseling patients, and would establish baseline trajectories for future studies of whether new treatments can modify disease course and development of comorbidities.”

The present study included 30,905 patients from two population-based birth cohorts: the 1958 National Childhood Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Follow-up data were collected between 1958 and 2016 via nine waves of standardized questionnaires, and subtypes of atopic eczema patterns were identified “based on parent-reported or self-reported atopic eczema period prevalence.”

This measure “was previously shown to coincide with standardized clinical examinations among children in the NCDS, and a similar questionnaire demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for physician-diagnosed atopic eczema in U.S. populations,” the investigators noted.

Latent class analysis identified four disease subtypes based on probability of reporting prevalent AD into midlife: low (88%-91%), decreasing (4%), increasing (2%-6%), and persistently high (2%-3%) probability.

Next, the investigators looked for associations between these subtypes and established early-life risk factors, such as history of breastfeeding and childhood smoke exposure. None of the childhood environmental factors differentiated between high versus decreasing disease in adulthood, or increasing versus decreasing disease in adulthood. In contrast, female sex predicted the high versus decreasing adult subtype (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.38), and the increasing versus decreasing adult subtype (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.69-2.35).

These findings suggest that “disease trajectory is modifiable and may be influenced by environmental factors throughout life,” the investigators wrote.

Further analysis uncovered associations between adult AD subtypes and other health outcomes. For example, compared with adults in the low probability group, those in the high probability group were significantly more likely to report rhinitis (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.24-3.26) and asthma (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.82-4.21). Adults with the increasing subtype also had elevated rates of asthma and rhinitis, along with worse self-reported mental health at age 42 (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72) and poor general health at age 46/50 (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53).

“When extending the window of observation beyond childhood, clear subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity emerged,” the investigators concluded. “In particular, a newly identified subtype with increasing probability of activity in adulthood warrants additional attention given associations with poor self-reported physical and mental health in midlife.”

Commenting on these results, Robert Sidbury, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that this is an “important study” because it adds to our understanding of natural disease course over time.

This knowledge, as a pediatric dermatologist, will help Dr. Sidbury answer one of the most common questions he hears from parents: When is it going to stop?

“Trying to put a little bit more evidence-based heft behind the answer ... is really important,” he said in an interview.

Based on available data, up to 10% of children with AD may have disease activity into adulthood, according to Dr. Sidbury, who is also chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“I would hazard to guess that most of those adults who have atopic dermatitis – at least the ones who had it in childhood – were told that they would grow out of it,” he said. “And so I think awareness is important – that [resolution with age] does not always happen.”

The findings also support the possibility that AD is a systemic disease, and that underlying immune dysregulation may be linked with serious health consequences later in life, Dr. Sidbury said, noting that “the stakes get higher and higher when you start speculating in that way.”

According to Dr. Sidbury, the reported link between childhood AD and poor midlife health raises questions about how modifiable the disease course may be, particularly in response to earlier intervention with emerging AD medications, which “seem to be much more effective and potent.”

“Will the advent of these medications and their adoption and use in treatment perhaps have a significant impact, not just on the prevention of atopic dermatitis itself, but maybe other comorbidities?” he asked.

For the time being, this question remains unanswered.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Abuabara received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the study, as well as personal fees from Target RWE and Pfizer outside of this study. One author reported receiving NIH grants during the study, another reported receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Innovative Medicine Initiative Horizon 2020 (BIOMAP project) during the study; there were no other disclosures. Dr. Sidbury disclosed relationships with Galderma, Regeneron, and Pfizer.
 

President Joe Biden has announced a host of new plans to rein in COVID-19’s runaway transmission in the United States, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.

As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.

He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.

Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.

“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”

One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.

“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.

National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.

“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.

A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.

But the plan was not well received by all.

“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.

The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.

“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.

In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.

President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.

He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.

The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.

He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.

Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.

“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.

Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.

President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.

President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.

“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”

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

President Joe Biden has announced a host of new plans to rein in COVID-19’s runaway transmission in the United States, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.

As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.

He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.

Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.

“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”

One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.

“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.

National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.

“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.

A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.

But the plan was not well received by all.

“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.

The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.

“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.

In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.

President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.

He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.

The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.

He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.

Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.

“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.

Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.

President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.

President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.

“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”

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

President Joe Biden has announced a host of new plans to rein in COVID-19’s runaway transmission in the United States, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.

As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.

He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.

Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.

“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”

One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.

“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.

National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.

“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.

A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.

But the plan was not well received by all.

“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.

The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.

“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.

In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.

President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.

He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.

The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.

He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.

Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.

“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.

Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.

President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.

President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.

“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”

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

The Diagnosis: Recurrent Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma

The skin biopsy revealed alternating orthokeratosis and parakeratosis with mild to moderate spongiosis and intraepidermal vesiculation as well as individual and nested atypical mononuclear cells with moderately enlarged hyperchromatic nuclei in the epidermis. There was a superficial interstitial lymphocytic infiltrate with occasional enlarged cells (Figure, A and B), and atypical cells in the epidermis and dermis stained with antibodies against CD3 and CD4 (Figure, C and D) but not against CD20 or CD8. These histopathologic findings were consistent with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), mycosis fungoides (MF) type. Additional application of bexarotene gel on days the patient received narrowband UVB was recommended with noted improvement of the skin.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas are a heterogenous group of diseases with monoclonal proliferation of T lymphocytes that largely are confined to the skin at the time of diagnosis.¹ The incidence of CTCL rose steadily for more than 25 years, with an annual age-adjusted incidence of 6.4 to 9.6 cases per million individuals in the United States from 1973 to 2002.² Mycosis fungoides is the most common classification of CTCL. It usually is characterized by patches or plaques of scaly erythema or poikiloderma; however, it also can present with annular, arcuate, concentrative, annular and linear morphologies. Mycosis fungoides tumor cells typically express a mature memory T helper cell phenotype of CD3+, CD4+, and CD8−, but there are different variants that have been discovered.³ Mycosis fungoides distributed in a spiral pattern is a distinctly unusual manifestation. Mechanisms of such dynamic morphologies are unknown but may represent an interplay between malignant cell proliferation and lost immune responses in temporospatial relationships.

The presence of keratotic gyrate lesions on acral surfaces should raise the possibility of pagetoid reticulosis. However, our patient had a history of MF involving areas of the body beyond the extremities, making this diagnosis less likely. Pagetoid reticulosis is categorized as an MF variant under the current World Health Organization– European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer classification for cutaneous lymphomas.⁴ Pagetoid reticulosis clinically presents as a solitary psoriasiform or hyperkeratotic patch or plaque that affects the distal extremities. Variable immunophenotypes have been shown in pagetoid reticulosis, such as CD4−/CD8+ and CD4−/CD8−, while classic MF typically shows CD4+/CD8−, as in our case.⁵

Tinea pedis is a superficial fungal infection usually caused by anthropophilic dermatophytes, with Trichophyton rubrum being the most common organism. Four common clinical presentations of tinea pedis have been identified: interdigital, moccasin, vesicular, and acute ulcerative. Clinical presentation ranges from macerations, ulcerations, and erosions in the toe web spaces to dry hyperkeratotic scaling and fissures on the plantar foot.⁶ Tinea pedis primarily affects the plantar and interdigital spaces, sparing the dorsal foot and ankle. Treatment is recommended to alleviate symptoms and limit the spread of infection; topical antifungals for 4 weeks is the treatment of choice. However, recurrence is common, and maintenance therapy often is indicated. Oral antifungals or a combination of both topical and oral medications may be needed in certain cases.⁷

Erythema annulare centrifugum (EAC) is a rare dermatologic disease described as erythematous or urticarial papules that can enlarge centrifugally to form annular lesions that clear centrally. Thought to be a hypersensitivity reaction to an underlying condition, EAC has been associated with fungal infections, various cutaneous diseases, and even internal malignancies. Clinically, EAC can be divided into 2 forms: deep and superficial. Deep gyrate erythema is characterized by a firm indurated border with rare scaling and pruritus that histologically shows perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in the upper and deep dermis. Superficial gyrate erythema has minimally elevated lesions with an indistinct border and trailing scales and pruritus; histopathologic findings present a dense, perivascular, lymphocytic infiltration restricted to the upper dermis.⁸ Therapy for EAC is directed at relieving symptoms and treating the underlying condition if there is one associated.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a common skin disorder classically characterized by ringed erythematous plaques, though many variants have been identified. Localized GA is the most common variant and presents with pink-red, nonscaly, annular patches or plaques, typically affecting the hands and feet. Generalized GA is characterized as diffuse annular patches or plaques classically affecting the trunk and extremities. Histology is notable for mucin with a palisading or interstitial pattern of granulomatous inflammation, which was not evident in our patient.⁹ Topical or intralesional corticosteroids are the first-line treatment of localized GA; however, localized GA generally is self-limited, and treatment often is not necessary. Treatment with cryosurgery, laser therapy, and topical dapsone and tacrolimus also has been described, but evidence of the efficacy of these agents is limited. For generalized GA, phototherapy currently is the most reliable therapy. Systemic therapies include antimalarials, fumaric acid esters, biologics, antimicrobials, and isotretinoin.¹⁰

Erythema gyratum repens (EGR) is a rare dermatologic disease described as erythematous concentric bands arranged in parallel rings that can be annular, figurate, or gyrate, with a fine scale trailing the leading edge. Histopathologic features of EGR are nonspecific but are characterized by a perivascular, superficial, mononuclear dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on its characteristic clinical presentation. Although EGR commonly is associated with internal malignancies such as bronchial carcinoma, it also may be associated with benign conditions.¹¹ Improvement often is seen with successful therapy of the underlying associated malignancy.¹²

Treatment of MF is based on tumor-node-metastasisblood classification, prognostic factors, and clinical stage at the time of diagnosis. Early-stage MF (IA–IIA) commonly is treated with skin-directed therapies such as topical corticosteroids, topical mechlorethamine, topical retinoids, UV phototherapy, and localized radiotherapy. In late stages (IIB–IV), systemic therapy is indicated and includes systemic retinoids, interferon alfa, chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and psoralen plus UVA.¹³ In many cases, patients may require combination therapy to achieve remission or better control of their condition, as in our patient.

The Diagnosis: Recurrent Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma

The skin biopsy revealed alternating orthokeratosis and parakeratosis with mild to moderate spongiosis and intraepidermal vesiculation as well as individual and nested atypical mononuclear cells with moderately enlarged hyperchromatic nuclei in the epidermis. There was a superficial interstitial lymphocytic infiltrate with occasional enlarged cells (Figure, A and B), and atypical cells in the epidermis and dermis stained with antibodies against CD3 and CD4 (Figure, C and D) but not against CD20 or CD8. These histopathologic findings were consistent with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), mycosis fungoides (MF) type. Additional application of bexarotene gel on days the patient received narrowband UVB was recommended with noted improvement of the skin.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas are a heterogenous group of diseases with monoclonal proliferation of T lymphocytes that largely are confined to the skin at the time of diagnosis.¹ The incidence of CTCL rose steadily for more than 25 years, with an annual age-adjusted incidence of 6.4 to 9.6 cases per million individuals in the United States from 1973 to 2002.² Mycosis fungoides is the most common classification of CTCL. It usually is characterized by patches or plaques of scaly erythema or poikiloderma; however, it also can present with annular, arcuate, concentrative, annular and linear morphologies. Mycosis fungoides tumor cells typically express a mature memory T helper cell phenotype of CD3+, CD4+, and CD8−, but there are different variants that have been discovered.³ Mycosis fungoides distributed in a spiral pattern is a distinctly unusual manifestation. Mechanisms of such dynamic morphologies are unknown but may represent an interplay between malignant cell proliferation and lost immune responses in temporospatial relationships.

The presence of keratotic gyrate lesions on acral surfaces should raise the possibility of pagetoid reticulosis. However, our patient had a history of MF involving areas of the body beyond the extremities, making this diagnosis less likely. Pagetoid reticulosis is categorized as an MF variant under the current World Health Organization– European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer classification for cutaneous lymphomas.⁴ Pagetoid reticulosis clinically presents as a solitary psoriasiform or hyperkeratotic patch or plaque that affects the distal extremities. Variable immunophenotypes have been shown in pagetoid reticulosis, such as CD4−/CD8+ and CD4−/CD8−, while classic MF typically shows CD4+/CD8−, as in our case.⁵

Tinea pedis is a superficial fungal infection usually caused by anthropophilic dermatophytes, with Trichophyton rubrum being the most common organism. Four common clinical presentations of tinea pedis have been identified: interdigital, moccasin, vesicular, and acute ulcerative. Clinical presentation ranges from macerations, ulcerations, and erosions in the toe web spaces to dry hyperkeratotic scaling and fissures on the plantar foot.⁶ Tinea pedis primarily affects the plantar and interdigital spaces, sparing the dorsal foot and ankle. Treatment is recommended to alleviate symptoms and limit the spread of infection; topical antifungals for 4 weeks is the treatment of choice. However, recurrence is common, and maintenance therapy often is indicated. Oral antifungals or a combination of both topical and oral medications may be needed in certain cases.⁷

Erythema annulare centrifugum (EAC) is a rare dermatologic disease described as erythematous or urticarial papules that can enlarge centrifugally to form annular lesions that clear centrally. Thought to be a hypersensitivity reaction to an underlying condition, EAC has been associated with fungal infections, various cutaneous diseases, and even internal malignancies. Clinically, EAC can be divided into 2 forms: deep and superficial. Deep gyrate erythema is characterized by a firm indurated border with rare scaling and pruritus that histologically shows perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in the upper and deep dermis. Superficial gyrate erythema has minimally elevated lesions with an indistinct border and trailing scales and pruritus; histopathologic findings present a dense, perivascular, lymphocytic infiltration restricted to the upper dermis.⁸ Therapy for EAC is directed at relieving symptoms and treating the underlying condition if there is one associated.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a common skin disorder classically characterized by ringed erythematous plaques, though many variants have been identified. Localized GA is the most common variant and presents with pink-red, nonscaly, annular patches or plaques, typically affecting the hands and feet. Generalized GA is characterized as diffuse annular patches or plaques classically affecting the trunk and extremities. Histology is notable for mucin with a palisading or interstitial pattern of granulomatous inflammation, which was not evident in our patient.⁹ Topical or intralesional corticosteroids are the first-line treatment of localized GA; however, localized GA generally is self-limited, and treatment often is not necessary. Treatment with cryosurgery, laser therapy, and topical dapsone and tacrolimus also has been described, but evidence of the efficacy of these agents is limited. For generalized GA, phototherapy currently is the most reliable therapy. Systemic therapies include antimalarials, fumaric acid esters, biologics, antimicrobials, and isotretinoin.¹⁰

Erythema gyratum repens (EGR) is a rare dermatologic disease described as erythematous concentric bands arranged in parallel rings that can be annular, figurate, or gyrate, with a fine scale trailing the leading edge. Histopathologic features of EGR are nonspecific but are characterized by a perivascular, superficial, mononuclear dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on its characteristic clinical presentation. Although EGR commonly is associated with internal malignancies such as bronchial carcinoma, it also may be associated with benign conditions.¹¹ Improvement often is seen with successful therapy of the underlying associated malignancy.¹²

Treatment of MF is based on tumor-node-metastasisblood classification, prognostic factors, and clinical stage at the time of diagnosis. Early-stage MF (IA–IIA) commonly is treated with skin-directed therapies such as topical corticosteroids, topical mechlorethamine, topical retinoids, UV phototherapy, and localized radiotherapy. In late stages (IIB–IV), systemic therapy is indicated and includes systemic retinoids, interferon alfa, chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and psoralen plus UVA.¹³ In many cases, patients may require combination therapy to achieve remission or better control of their condition, as in our patient.

The Diagnosis: Recurrent Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma

The skin biopsy revealed alternating orthokeratosis and parakeratosis with mild to moderate spongiosis and intraepidermal vesiculation as well as individual and nested atypical mononuclear cells with moderately enlarged hyperchromatic nuclei in the epidermis. There was a superficial interstitial lymphocytic infiltrate with occasional enlarged cells (Figure, A and B), and atypical cells in the epidermis and dermis stained with antibodies against CD3 and CD4 (Figure, C and D) but not against CD20 or CD8. These histopathologic findings were consistent with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), mycosis fungoides (MF) type. Additional application of bexarotene gel on days the patient received narrowband UVB was recommended with noted improvement of the skin.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas are a heterogenous group of diseases with monoclonal proliferation of T lymphocytes that largely are confined to the skin at the time of diagnosis.¹ The incidence of CTCL rose steadily for more than 25 years, with an annual age-adjusted incidence of 6.4 to 9.6 cases per million individuals in the United States from 1973 to 2002.² Mycosis fungoides is the most common classification of CTCL. It usually is characterized by patches or plaques of scaly erythema or poikiloderma; however, it also can present with annular, arcuate, concentrative, annular and linear morphologies. Mycosis fungoides tumor cells typically express a mature memory T helper cell phenotype of CD3+, CD4+, and CD8−, but there are different variants that have been discovered.³ Mycosis fungoides distributed in a spiral pattern is a distinctly unusual manifestation. Mechanisms of such dynamic morphologies are unknown but may represent an interplay between malignant cell proliferation and lost immune responses in temporospatial relationships.

The presence of keratotic gyrate lesions on acral surfaces should raise the possibility of pagetoid reticulosis. However, our patient had a history of MF involving areas of the body beyond the extremities, making this diagnosis less likely. Pagetoid reticulosis is categorized as an MF variant under the current World Health Organization– European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer classification for cutaneous lymphomas.⁴ Pagetoid reticulosis clinically presents as a solitary psoriasiform or hyperkeratotic patch or plaque that affects the distal extremities. Variable immunophenotypes have been shown in pagetoid reticulosis, such as CD4−/CD8+ and CD4−/CD8−, while classic MF typically shows CD4+/CD8−, as in our case.⁵

Tinea pedis is a superficial fungal infection usually caused by anthropophilic dermatophytes, with Trichophyton rubrum being the most common organism. Four common clinical presentations of tinea pedis have been identified: interdigital, moccasin, vesicular, and acute ulcerative. Clinical presentation ranges from macerations, ulcerations, and erosions in the toe web spaces to dry hyperkeratotic scaling and fissures on the plantar foot.⁶ Tinea pedis primarily affects the plantar and interdigital spaces, sparing the dorsal foot and ankle. Treatment is recommended to alleviate symptoms and limit the spread of infection; topical antifungals for 4 weeks is the treatment of choice. However, recurrence is common, and maintenance therapy often is indicated. Oral antifungals or a combination of both topical and oral medications may be needed in certain cases.⁷

Erythema annulare centrifugum (EAC) is a rare dermatologic disease described as erythematous or urticarial papules that can enlarge centrifugally to form annular lesions that clear centrally. Thought to be a hypersensitivity reaction to an underlying condition, EAC has been associated with fungal infections, various cutaneous diseases, and even internal malignancies. Clinically, EAC can be divided into 2 forms: deep and superficial. Deep gyrate erythema is characterized by a firm indurated border with rare scaling and pruritus that histologically shows perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in the upper and deep dermis. Superficial gyrate erythema has minimally elevated lesions with an indistinct border and trailing scales and pruritus; histopathologic findings present a dense, perivascular, lymphocytic infiltration restricted to the upper dermis.⁸ Therapy for EAC is directed at relieving symptoms and treating the underlying condition if there is one associated.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a common skin disorder classically characterized by ringed erythematous plaques, though many variants have been identified. Localized GA is the most common variant and presents with pink-red, nonscaly, annular patches or plaques, typically affecting the hands and feet. Generalized GA is characterized as diffuse annular patches or plaques classically affecting the trunk and extremities. Histology is notable for mucin with a palisading or interstitial pattern of granulomatous inflammation, which was not evident in our patient.⁹ Topical or intralesional corticosteroids are the first-line treatment of localized GA; however, localized GA generally is self-limited, and treatment often is not necessary. Treatment with cryosurgery, laser therapy, and topical dapsone and tacrolimus also has been described, but evidence of the efficacy of these agents is limited. For generalized GA, phototherapy currently is the most reliable therapy. Systemic therapies include antimalarials, fumaric acid esters, biologics, antimicrobials, and isotretinoin.¹⁰

Erythema gyratum repens (EGR) is a rare dermatologic disease described as erythematous concentric bands arranged in parallel rings that can be annular, figurate, or gyrate, with a fine scale trailing the leading edge. Histopathologic features of EGR are nonspecific but are characterized by a perivascular, superficial, mononuclear dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on its characteristic clinical presentation. Although EGR commonly is associated with internal malignancies such as bronchial carcinoma, it also may be associated with benign conditions.¹¹ Improvement often is seen with successful therapy of the underlying associated malignancy.¹²

Treatment of MF is based on tumor-node-metastasisblood classification, prognostic factors, and clinical stage at the time of diagnosis. Early-stage MF (IA–IIA) commonly is treated with skin-directed therapies such as topical corticosteroids, topical mechlorethamine, topical retinoids, UV phototherapy, and localized radiotherapy. In late stages (IIB–IV), systemic therapy is indicated and includes systemic retinoids, interferon alfa, chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and psoralen plus UVA.¹³ In many cases, patients may require combination therapy to achieve remission or better control of their condition, as in our patient.

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on Sept. 8 on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) against the Food and Drug Administration for the agency’s failure to act on a petition submitted by the foundation 4 years ago.

The September 2017 petition requested that the FDA take the popular hair-loss drug (1 mg finasteride, Propecia) off the market because of evidence of serious risk of patient injury, including depression and suicidal ideation. 

As an alternative, PFSF requested that the FDA require the drug’s manufacturers revise the safety information on the labeling and add boxed warnings to disclose the potential for side effects, another of which is erectile dysfunction.

Public Citizen points to a recent analysis of the VigiBase global database, which tracks adverse effects from global pharmacovigilance agencies, lists 356 reports of suicidality and 2,926 reports of psychological adverse events in finasteride users. Yet, 4 years after submitting the petition, the FDA has neither granted nor denied it.

The lawsuit claims that FDA has acted unlawfully in failing to act on PFSF’s petition, and further cites “88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use” per data from the VigiBase database.

“On the same day that PFSF submitted the petition, FDA’s docket management division acknowledged receipt and assigned the petition a docket number,” Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney serving as lead counsel for PFSF, told this news organization.

Yet, to date, “there has been no substantive response to the petition. The lawsuit filed today seeks to force FDA to issue a decision on PFSF’s petition,” Mr. Kirkpatrick said.

“The FDA needs to act in a timely way to protect the public from the risks associated with use of Propecia. The FDA’s failure to act exposes consumers to potentially life-threatening harm,” he added in a statement.

The complaint filed today by Public Citizen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is available online. 

This news organization reached out to the FDA for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
 

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

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on Sept. 8 on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) against the Food and Drug Administration for the agency’s failure to act on a petition submitted by the foundation 4 years ago.

The September 2017 petition requested that the FDA take the popular hair-loss drug (1 mg finasteride, Propecia) off the market because of evidence of serious risk of patient injury, including depression and suicidal ideation. 

As an alternative, PFSF requested that the FDA require the drug’s manufacturers revise the safety information on the labeling and add boxed warnings to disclose the potential for side effects, another of which is erectile dysfunction.

Public Citizen points to a recent analysis of the VigiBase global database, which tracks adverse effects from global pharmacovigilance agencies, lists 356 reports of suicidality and 2,926 reports of psychological adverse events in finasteride users. Yet, 4 years after submitting the petition, the FDA has neither granted nor denied it.

The lawsuit claims that FDA has acted unlawfully in failing to act on PFSF’s petition, and further cites “88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use” per data from the VigiBase database.

“On the same day that PFSF submitted the petition, FDA’s docket management division acknowledged receipt and assigned the petition a docket number,” Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney serving as lead counsel for PFSF, told this news organization.

Yet, to date, “there has been no substantive response to the petition. The lawsuit filed today seeks to force FDA to issue a decision on PFSF’s petition,” Mr. Kirkpatrick said.

“The FDA needs to act in a timely way to protect the public from the risks associated with use of Propecia. The FDA’s failure to act exposes consumers to potentially life-threatening harm,” he added in a statement.

The complaint filed today by Public Citizen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is available online. 

This news organization reached out to the FDA for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
 

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

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on Sept. 8 on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) against the Food and Drug Administration for the agency’s failure to act on a petition submitted by the foundation 4 years ago.

The September 2017 petition requested that the FDA take the popular hair-loss drug (1 mg finasteride, Propecia) off the market because of evidence of serious risk of patient injury, including depression and suicidal ideation. 

As an alternative, PFSF requested that the FDA require the drug’s manufacturers revise the safety information on the labeling and add boxed warnings to disclose the potential for side effects, another of which is erectile dysfunction.

Public Citizen points to a recent analysis of the VigiBase global database, which tracks adverse effects from global pharmacovigilance agencies, lists 356 reports of suicidality and 2,926 reports of psychological adverse events in finasteride users. Yet, 4 years after submitting the petition, the FDA has neither granted nor denied it.

The lawsuit claims that FDA has acted unlawfully in failing to act on PFSF’s petition, and further cites “88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use” per data from the VigiBase database.

“On the same day that PFSF submitted the petition, FDA’s docket management division acknowledged receipt and assigned the petition a docket number,” Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney serving as lead counsel for PFSF, told this news organization.

Yet, to date, “there has been no substantive response to the petition. The lawsuit filed today seeks to force FDA to issue a decision on PFSF’s petition,” Mr. Kirkpatrick said.

“The FDA needs to act in a timely way to protect the public from the risks associated with use of Propecia. The FDA’s failure to act exposes consumers to potentially life-threatening harm,” he added in a statement.

The complaint filed today by Public Citizen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is available online. 

This news organization reached out to the FDA for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
 

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

Steal from the warm, give to the cold

If there’s one constant in life other than taxes, it’s elderly people moving to Florida. The Sunshine State’s reputation as a giant retirement home needs no elaboration, but why do senior citizens gravitate there? Well, many reasons, but a big one is that, the older you get, the more susceptible and sensitive you are to the cold. And now, according to a new study, we may have identified a culprit.

Elena Korenbaum/iStockphoto

Researchers from Yale University examined a group of mice and found that the older ones lacked ICL2 cells in their fatty tissue. These cells, at least in younger mice, help restore body heat when exposed to cold temperatures. Lacking these cells meant that older mice had a limited ability to burn their fat and raise their temperature in response to cold.

Well, job done, all we need to do now is stimulate production of ICL2 cells in elderly people, and they’ll be able to go outside in 80-degree weather without a sweater again. Except there’s a problem. In a cruel twist of fate, when the elderly mice were given a molecule to boost ICL2 cell production, they actually became less tolerant of the cold than at baseline. Oops.

The scientists didn’t give up though, and gave their elderly mice ICL2 cells from young mice. This finally did the trick, though we have to admit, if that treatment does eventually scale up to humans, the prospect of a bunch of senior citizens taking ICL2 cells from young people to stay warm does sound a bit like a bad vampire movie premise. “I vant to suck your immune cell group 2 innate lymphoid cells!” Not the most pithy catch phrase in the world.
 

Grocery store tapping your subconscious? It’s a good thing

We all know there’s marketing and functionality elements to grocery stores and how they’re set up for your shopping pleasure. But what if I told you that the good old supermarket subconscious trick works on how healthy food decisions are?

PxHere

In a recent study, researchers at the University of Southampton in England found that if you placed a wider selection of fruits and vegetables near the entrances and more nonfood items near checkouts, sales decreased on the sweets and increased on the produce. “The findings of our study suggest that a healthier store layout could lead to nearly 10,000 extra portions of fruit and vegetables and approximately 1,500 fewer portions of confectionery being sold on a weekly basis in each store,” lead author Dr. Christina Vogel explained.

You’re probably thinking that food placement studies aren’t new. That’s true, but this one went above and beyond. Instead of just looking at the influence placement has on purchase, this one took it further by trying to reduce the consumers’ “calorie opportunities” and examining the effect on sales. Also, customer loyalty, patterns, and diets were taken into account across multiple household members.

The researchers think shifting the layouts in grocery stores could shift people’s food choices, producing a domino effect on the population’s overall diet. With obesity, diabetes, and cardiology concerns always looming, swaying consumers toward healthier food choices makes for better public health overall.

So if you feel like you’re being subconsciously assaulted by veggies every time you walk into Trader Joe’s, just know it’s for your own good.
 

TikTokers take on tics

We know TikTok is what makes a lot of teens and young adults tick, but what if TikTokers are actually catching tic disorders from other TikTokers?

Bicanski/Pixnio

TikTok blew up during the pandemic. Many people were stuck at home and had nothing better to do than make and watch TikTok videos. The pandemic brought isolation, uncertainty, and anxiety. The stress that followed may have caused many people, mostly women and young girls, to develop tic disorders.

There’s a TikTok for everything, whether it’s a new dance or a recipe. Many people even use TikTok to speak out about their illnesses. Several TikTokers have Tourette’s syndrome and show their tics on their videos. It appears that some audience members actually “catch” the tics from watching the videos and are then unable to stop certain jerking movements or saying specific words.

Neurologists at the University of Calgary (Alta.), who were hearing from colleagues and getting referrals of such patients, called it “an epidemic within the pandemic.” The behavior is not actually Tourette’s, they told Vice, but the patients “cannot stop, and we have absolutely witnessed that.”

There is, of course, controversy over the issue. One individual with the condition said, “I feel like there’s a lot of really weird, backwards stigma on TikTok about tic disorders. Like, you aren’t allowed to have one unless it’s this one.”

Who would have guessed that people would disagree over stuff on the Internet?
 

Look on the bright side: Obesity edition

The pandemic may have postponed “Top Gun: Maverick” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” until who-knows-when, but we here at LOTME are happy to announce the nearly-as-anticipated return of Bacteria vs. the World.

© okeyphotos/iStockphoto.com

As you may recall from our last edition of BVTW, bacteria battled the ghost of Charles Darwin, who had taken the earthly form of antibiotics capable of stopping bacterial evolution. Tonight, our prokaryotic protagonists take on an equally relentless and ubiquitous challenger: obesity.

Specifically, we’re putting bacteria up against the obesity survival paradox, that phenomenon in which obesity and overweight seem to protect against – yes, you guessed it – bacterial infections.

A Swedish research team observed a group of 2,196 individual adults who received care for suspected severe bacterial infection at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde. One year after hospitalization, 26% of normal-weight (body mass index, 18.5-24.99) patients were dead, compared with 17% of overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.99), 16% of obese (BMI, 30.0-34.99), and 9% of very obese (BMI >35) patients.

These results confirm the obesity survival paradox, but “what we don’t know is how being overweight can benefit the patient with a bacterial infection, or whether it’s connected with functions in the immune system and how they’re regulated,” lead author Dr. Åsa Alsiö said in a written statement.

A spokes-cell for the bacteria disputed the results and challenged the legitimacy of the investigators. When asked if there should be some sort of reexamination of the findings, he/she/it replied: “You bet your flagella.” We then pointed out that humans don’t have flagellum, and the representative raised his/her/its flagella in what could only be considered an obscene gesture.

Steal from the warm, give to the cold

If there’s one constant in life other than taxes, it’s elderly people moving to Florida. The Sunshine State’s reputation as a giant retirement home needs no elaboration, but why do senior citizens gravitate there? Well, many reasons, but a big one is that, the older you get, the more susceptible and sensitive you are to the cold. And now, according to a new study, we may have identified a culprit.

Elena Korenbaum/iStockphoto

Researchers from Yale University examined a group of mice and found that the older ones lacked ICL2 cells in their fatty tissue. These cells, at least in younger mice, help restore body heat when exposed to cold temperatures. Lacking these cells meant that older mice had a limited ability to burn their fat and raise their temperature in response to cold.

Well, job done, all we need to do now is stimulate production of ICL2 cells in elderly people, and they’ll be able to go outside in 80-degree weather without a sweater again. Except there’s a problem. In a cruel twist of fate, when the elderly mice were given a molecule to boost ICL2 cell production, they actually became less tolerant of the cold than at baseline. Oops.

The scientists didn’t give up though, and gave their elderly mice ICL2 cells from young mice. This finally did the trick, though we have to admit, if that treatment does eventually scale up to humans, the prospect of a bunch of senior citizens taking ICL2 cells from young people to stay warm does sound a bit like a bad vampire movie premise. “I vant to suck your immune cell group 2 innate lymphoid cells!” Not the most pithy catch phrase in the world.
 

Grocery store tapping your subconscious? It’s a good thing

We all know there’s marketing and functionality elements to grocery stores and how they’re set up for your shopping pleasure. But what if I told you that the good old supermarket subconscious trick works on how healthy food decisions are?

PxHere

In a recent study, researchers at the University of Southampton in England found that if you placed a wider selection of fruits and vegetables near the entrances and more nonfood items near checkouts, sales decreased on the sweets and increased on the produce. “The findings of our study suggest that a healthier store layout could lead to nearly 10,000 extra portions of fruit and vegetables and approximately 1,500 fewer portions of confectionery being sold on a weekly basis in each store,” lead author Dr. Christina Vogel explained.

You’re probably thinking that food placement studies aren’t new. That’s true, but this one went above and beyond. Instead of just looking at the influence placement has on purchase, this one took it further by trying to reduce the consumers’ “calorie opportunities” and examining the effect on sales. Also, customer loyalty, patterns, and diets were taken into account across multiple household members.

The researchers think shifting the layouts in grocery stores could shift people’s food choices, producing a domino effect on the population’s overall diet. With obesity, diabetes, and cardiology concerns always looming, swaying consumers toward healthier food choices makes for better public health overall.

So if you feel like you’re being subconsciously assaulted by veggies every time you walk into Trader Joe’s, just know it’s for your own good.
 

TikTokers take on tics

We know TikTok is what makes a lot of teens and young adults tick, but what if TikTokers are actually catching tic disorders from other TikTokers?

Bicanski/Pixnio

TikTok blew up during the pandemic. Many people were stuck at home and had nothing better to do than make and watch TikTok videos. The pandemic brought isolation, uncertainty, and anxiety. The stress that followed may have caused many people, mostly women and young girls, to develop tic disorders.

There’s a TikTok for everything, whether it’s a new dance or a recipe. Many people even use TikTok to speak out about their illnesses. Several TikTokers have Tourette’s syndrome and show their tics on their videos. It appears that some audience members actually “catch” the tics from watching the videos and are then unable to stop certain jerking movements or saying specific words.

Neurologists at the University of Calgary (Alta.), who were hearing from colleagues and getting referrals of such patients, called it “an epidemic within the pandemic.” The behavior is not actually Tourette’s, they told Vice, but the patients “cannot stop, and we have absolutely witnessed that.”

There is, of course, controversy over the issue. One individual with the condition said, “I feel like there’s a lot of really weird, backwards stigma on TikTok about tic disorders. Like, you aren’t allowed to have one unless it’s this one.”

Who would have guessed that people would disagree over stuff on the Internet?
 

Look on the bright side: Obesity edition

The pandemic may have postponed “Top Gun: Maverick” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” until who-knows-when, but we here at LOTME are happy to announce the nearly-as-anticipated return of Bacteria vs. the World.

© okeyphotos/iStockphoto.com

As you may recall from our last edition of BVTW, bacteria battled the ghost of Charles Darwin, who had taken the earthly form of antibiotics capable of stopping bacterial evolution. Tonight, our prokaryotic protagonists take on an equally relentless and ubiquitous challenger: obesity.

Specifically, we’re putting bacteria up against the obesity survival paradox, that phenomenon in which obesity and overweight seem to protect against – yes, you guessed it – bacterial infections.

A Swedish research team observed a group of 2,196 individual adults who received care for suspected severe bacterial infection at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde. One year after hospitalization, 26% of normal-weight (body mass index, 18.5-24.99) patients were dead, compared with 17% of overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.99), 16% of obese (BMI, 30.0-34.99), and 9% of very obese (BMI >35) patients.

These results confirm the obesity survival paradox, but “what we don’t know is how being overweight can benefit the patient with a bacterial infection, or whether it’s connected with functions in the immune system and how they’re regulated,” lead author Dr. Åsa Alsiö said in a written statement.

A spokes-cell for the bacteria disputed the results and challenged the legitimacy of the investigators. When asked if there should be some sort of reexamination of the findings, he/she/it replied: “You bet your flagella.” We then pointed out that humans don’t have flagellum, and the representative raised his/her/its flagella in what could only be considered an obscene gesture.

Steal from the warm, give to the cold

If there’s one constant in life other than taxes, it’s elderly people moving to Florida. The Sunshine State’s reputation as a giant retirement home needs no elaboration, but why do senior citizens gravitate there? Well, many reasons, but a big one is that, the older you get, the more susceptible and sensitive you are to the cold. And now, according to a new study, we may have identified a culprit.

Elena Korenbaum/iStockphoto

Researchers from Yale University examined a group of mice and found that the older ones lacked ICL2 cells in their fatty tissue. These cells, at least in younger mice, help restore body heat when exposed to cold temperatures. Lacking these cells meant that older mice had a limited ability to burn their fat and raise their temperature in response to cold.

Well, job done, all we need to do now is stimulate production of ICL2 cells in elderly people, and they’ll be able to go outside in 80-degree weather without a sweater again. Except there’s a problem. In a cruel twist of fate, when the elderly mice were given a molecule to boost ICL2 cell production, they actually became less tolerant of the cold than at baseline. Oops.

The scientists didn’t give up though, and gave their elderly mice ICL2 cells from young mice. This finally did the trick, though we have to admit, if that treatment does eventually scale up to humans, the prospect of a bunch of senior citizens taking ICL2 cells from young people to stay warm does sound a bit like a bad vampire movie premise. “I vant to suck your immune cell group 2 innate lymphoid cells!” Not the most pithy catch phrase in the world.
 

Grocery store tapping your subconscious? It’s a good thing

We all know there’s marketing and functionality elements to grocery stores and how they’re set up for your shopping pleasure. But what if I told you that the good old supermarket subconscious trick works on how healthy food decisions are?

PxHere

In a recent study, researchers at the University of Southampton in England found that if you placed a wider selection of fruits and vegetables near the entrances and more nonfood items near checkouts, sales decreased on the sweets and increased on the produce. “The findings of our study suggest that a healthier store layout could lead to nearly 10,000 extra portions of fruit and vegetables and approximately 1,500 fewer portions of confectionery being sold on a weekly basis in each store,” lead author Dr. Christina Vogel explained.

You’re probably thinking that food placement studies aren’t new. That’s true, but this one went above and beyond. Instead of just looking at the influence placement has on purchase, this one took it further by trying to reduce the consumers’ “calorie opportunities” and examining the effect on sales. Also, customer loyalty, patterns, and diets were taken into account across multiple household members.

The researchers think shifting the layouts in grocery stores could shift people’s food choices, producing a domino effect on the population’s overall diet. With obesity, diabetes, and cardiology concerns always looming, swaying consumers toward healthier food choices makes for better public health overall.

So if you feel like you’re being subconsciously assaulted by veggies every time you walk into Trader Joe’s, just know it’s for your own good.
 

TikTokers take on tics

We know TikTok is what makes a lot of teens and young adults tick, but what if TikTokers are actually catching tic disorders from other TikTokers?

Bicanski/Pixnio

TikTok blew up during the pandemic. Many people were stuck at home and had nothing better to do than make and watch TikTok videos. The pandemic brought isolation, uncertainty, and anxiety. The stress that followed may have caused many people, mostly women and young girls, to develop tic disorders.

There’s a TikTok for everything, whether it’s a new dance or a recipe. Many people even use TikTok to speak out about their illnesses. Several TikTokers have Tourette’s syndrome and show their tics on their videos. It appears that some audience members actually “catch” the tics from watching the videos and are then unable to stop certain jerking movements or saying specific words.

Neurologists at the University of Calgary (Alta.), who were hearing from colleagues and getting referrals of such patients, called it “an epidemic within the pandemic.” The behavior is not actually Tourette’s, they told Vice, but the patients “cannot stop, and we have absolutely witnessed that.”

There is, of course, controversy over the issue. One individual with the condition said, “I feel like there’s a lot of really weird, backwards stigma on TikTok about tic disorders. Like, you aren’t allowed to have one unless it’s this one.”

Who would have guessed that people would disagree over stuff on the Internet?
 

Look on the bright side: Obesity edition

The pandemic may have postponed “Top Gun: Maverick” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” until who-knows-when, but we here at LOTME are happy to announce the nearly-as-anticipated return of Bacteria vs. the World.

© okeyphotos/iStockphoto.com

As you may recall from our last edition of BVTW, bacteria battled the ghost of Charles Darwin, who had taken the earthly form of antibiotics capable of stopping bacterial evolution. Tonight, our prokaryotic protagonists take on an equally relentless and ubiquitous challenger: obesity.

Specifically, we’re putting bacteria up against the obesity survival paradox, that phenomenon in which obesity and overweight seem to protect against – yes, you guessed it – bacterial infections.

A Swedish research team observed a group of 2,196 individual adults who received care for suspected severe bacterial infection at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde. One year after hospitalization, 26% of normal-weight (body mass index, 18.5-24.99) patients were dead, compared with 17% of overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.99), 16% of obese (BMI, 30.0-34.99), and 9% of very obese (BMI >35) patients.

These results confirm the obesity survival paradox, but “what we don’t know is how being overweight can benefit the patient with a bacterial infection, or whether it’s connected with functions in the immune system and how they’re regulated,” lead author Dr. Åsa Alsiö said in a written statement.

A spokes-cell for the bacteria disputed the results and challenged the legitimacy of the investigators. When asked if there should be some sort of reexamination of the findings, he/she/it replied: “You bet your flagella.” We then pointed out that humans don’t have flagellum, and the representative raised his/her/its flagella in what could only be considered an obscene gesture.

Insurers Target Modifier -25

Modifier -25 allows reporting of both a minor procedure (ie, one with a 0- or 10-day global period) and a separate and distinct evaluation and management (E/M) service on the same date of service.¹ Because of the multicomplaint nature of dermatology, the ability to report a same-day procedure and an E/M service is critical for efficient, cost-effective, and patient-centered dermatologic care. However, it is well known that the use of modifier -25 has been under notable insurer scrutiny and is a common reason for medical record audits.^2,3 Some insurers have responded to increased utilization of modifier -25 by cutting reimbursement for claims that include both a procedure and an E/M service or by denying one of the services altogether.^4-6 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also have expressed concern about this coding combination with proposed cuts to reimbursement.⁷ Moreover, the Office of Inspector General has announced a work plan to investigate the frequent utilization of E/M codes and minor procedures by dermatologists.⁸ Clearly, modifier -25 is a continued target by insurers and regulators; therefore, dermatologists will want to make sure their coding and documentation meet all requirements and are updated for the new E/M codes for 2021.

The American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology indicates that modifier -25 allows reporting of a “significant, separately identifiable evaluation and management service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional on the same day of a procedure or other service.”¹ Given that dermatology patients typically present with multiple concerns, dermatologists commonly evaluate and treat numerous conditions during one visit. Understanding what constitutes a separately identifiable E/M service is critical to bill accurately and to pass insurer audits.

Global Surgical Package

To appropriately bill both a procedure and an E/M service, the physician must indicate that the patient’s condition required an E/M service above and beyond the usual work of the procedure. The compilation of evaluation and work included in the payment for a procedure is called the global surgical package.⁹ In general, the global surgical package includes local or topical anesthesia; the surgical service/procedure itself; immediate postoperative care, including dictating the operative note; meeting/discussing the patient’s procedure with family and other physicians; and writing orders for the patient. For minor procedures (ie, those with either 0- or 10-day global periods), the surgical package also includes same-day E/M services associated with the decision to perform surgery. An appropriate history and physical examination as well as a discussion of the differential diagnosis, treatment options, and risk and benefits of treatment are all included in the payment of a minor procedure itself. Therefore, an evaluation to discuss a patient’s condition or change in condition, alternatives to treatment, or next steps after a diagnosis related to a treatment or diagnostic procedure should not be separately reported. Moreover, the fact that the patient is new to the physician is not in itself sufficient to allow reporting of an E/M service with these minor procedures. For major procedures (ie, those with 90-day postoperative periods), the decision for surgery is excluded from the global surgical package.

2021 E/M Codes Simplify Documentation

The biggest coding change of 2021 was the new E/M codes.¹⁰ Prior to this year, the descriptors of E/M services recognized 7 components to define the levels of E/M services¹¹: history and nature of the presenting problem; physical examination; medical decision-making (MDM); counseling; coordination of care; and time. Furthermore, history, physical examination, and MDM were all broken down into more granular elements that were summed to determine the level for each component; for example, the history of the presenting problem was defined as a chronological description of the development of the patient’s present illness, including the following elements: location, quality, severity, duration, timing, context, modifying factors, and associated signs and symptoms. Each of these categories would constitute bullet points to be summed to determine the level of history. Physical examination and MDM bullet points also would be summed to determine a proper coding level.¹¹ Understandably, this coding scheme was complicated and burdensome to medical providers.

The redefinition of the E/M codes for 2021 substantially simplified the determination of coding level and documentation.¹⁰ The revisions to the E/M office visit code descriptors and documentation standards are now centered around how physicians think and take care of patients and not on mandatory standards and checking boxes. The main changes involve MDM as the prime determinant of the coding level. Elements of MDM affecting coding for an outpatient or office visit now include only 3 components: the number and complexity of problems addressed in the encounter, the amount or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and the risk of complications or morbidity of patient management. Gone are the requirements from the earlier criteria requiring so many bullet points for the history, physical examination, and MDM.

Dermatologists may ask, “How does the new E/M coding structure affect reporting and documenting an E/M and a procedure on the same day?” The answer is that the determination of separate and distinct is basically unchanged with the new E/M codes; however, the documentation requirements for modifier -25 using the new E/M codes are simplified.

As always, the key to determining whether a separate and distinct E/M service was provided and subsequently documented is to deconstruct the medical note. All evaluation services associated with the procedure—making a clinical diagnosis or differential diagnosis, decision to perform surgery, and discussion of alternative treatments—should be removed from one’s documentation as shown in the example below. If a complete E/M service still exists, then an E/M may be billed in addition to the procedure. Physical examination of the treatment area is included in the surgical package. With the prior E/M criteria, physical examination of the procedural area could not be used again as a bullet point to count for the E/M level. However, with the new 2021 coding requirements, the documentation of a separate MDM will be sufficient to meet criteria because documentation of physical examination is not a requirement.

Modifier -25 Examples

Let’s examine a typical dermatologist medical note. An established patient presents to the dermatologist complaining of an itchy rash on the left wrist after a hiking trip. Treatment with topical hydrocortisone 1% did not help. The patient also complains of a growing tender lesion on the left elbow of 2 months’ duration. Physical examination reveals a linear vesicular eruption on the left wrist and a tender hyperkeratotic papule on the left elbow. No data is evaluated. A diagnosis of acute rhus dermatitis of the left wrist is made, and betamethasone cream is prescribed. The decision is made to perform a tangential biopsy of the lesion on the left elbow because of the suspicion for malignancy. The biopsy is performed the same day.

This case clearly illustrates performance of an E/M service in the treatment of rhus dermatitis, which is separate and distinct from the biopsy procedure; however, in evaluating whether the case meets the documentation requirements for modifier -25, the information in the medical note inclusive to the procedure’s global surgical package, including history associated with establishing the diagnosis, physical examination of the procedure area(s), and discussion of treatment options, is eliminated, leaving the following notes: An established patient presents to the dermatologist complaining of an itchy rash on the left wrist after a hiking trip. Treatment with topical hydrocortisone 1% did not help. No data is evaluated. A diagnosis of acute rhus dermatitis of the left wrist is made, and betamethasone cream is prescribed.

Because the physical examination of the body part (left arm) is included in the procedure’s global surgical package, the examination of the left wrist cannot be used as coding support for the E/M service. This makes a difference for coding level in the prior E/M coding requirements, which required examination bullet points. However, with the 2021 E/M codes, documentation of physical examination bullet points is irrelevant to the coding level. Therefore, qualifying for a modifier -25 claim is more straightforward in this case with the new code set. Because bullet points are not integral to the 2021 E/M codes, qualifying and properly documenting for a higher level of service will likely be more common in dermatology.

Final Thoughts

Frequent use of modifier -25 is a critical part of a high-quality and cost-effective dermatology practice. Same-day performance of minor procedures and E/M services allows for more rapid and efficient diagnosis and treatment of various conditions as well as minimizing unnecessary office visits. The new E/M codes for 2021 actually make the documentation of a separate and distinct E/M service less complicated because the bullet point requirements associated with the old E/M codes have been eliminated. Understanding how the new E/M code descriptors affect modifier -25 reporting and clear documentation of separate, distinct, and medically necessary E/M services will be needed due to increased insurer scrutiny and audits.

Insurers Target Modifier -25

Modifier -25 allows reporting of both a minor procedure (ie, one with a 0- or 10-day global period) and a separate and distinct evaluation and management (E/M) service on the same date of service.¹ Because of the multicomplaint nature of dermatology, the ability to report a same-day procedure and an E/M service is critical for efficient, cost-effective, and patient-centered dermatologic care. However, it is well known that the use of modifier -25 has been under notable insurer scrutiny and is a common reason for medical record audits.^2,3 Some insurers have responded to increased utilization of modifier -25 by cutting reimbursement for claims that include both a procedure and an E/M service or by denying one of the services altogether.^4-6 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also have expressed concern about this coding combination with proposed cuts to reimbursement.⁷ Moreover, the Office of Inspector General has announced a work plan to investigate the frequent utilization of E/M codes and minor procedures by dermatologists.⁸ Clearly, modifier -25 is a continued target by insurers and regulators; therefore, dermatologists will want to make sure their coding and documentation meet all requirements and are updated for the new E/M codes for 2021.

The American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology indicates that modifier -25 allows reporting of a “significant, separately identifiable evaluation and management service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional on the same day of a procedure or other service.”¹ Given that dermatology patients typically present with multiple concerns, dermatologists commonly evaluate and treat numerous conditions during one visit. Understanding what constitutes a separately identifiable E/M service is critical to bill accurately and to pass insurer audits.

Global Surgical Package

To appropriately bill both a procedure and an E/M service, the physician must indicate that the patient’s condition required an E/M service above and beyond the usual work of the procedure. The compilation of evaluation and work included in the payment for a procedure is called the global surgical package.⁹ In general, the global surgical package includes local or topical anesthesia; the surgical service/procedure itself; immediate postoperative care, including dictating the operative note; meeting/discussing the patient’s procedure with family and other physicians; and writing orders for the patient. For minor procedures (ie, those with either 0- or 10-day global periods), the surgical package also includes same-day E/M services associated with the decision to perform surgery. An appropriate history and physical examination as well as a discussion of the differential diagnosis, treatment options, and risk and benefits of treatment are all included in the payment of a minor procedure itself. Therefore, an evaluation to discuss a patient’s condition or change in condition, alternatives to treatment, or next steps after a diagnosis related to a treatment or diagnostic procedure should not be separately reported. Moreover, the fact that the patient is new to the physician is not in itself sufficient to allow reporting of an E/M service with these minor procedures. For major procedures (ie, those with 90-day postoperative periods), the decision for surgery is excluded from the global surgical package.

2021 E/M Codes Simplify Documentation

The biggest coding change of 2021 was the new E/M codes.¹⁰ Prior to this year, the descriptors of E/M services recognized 7 components to define the levels of E/M services¹¹: history and nature of the presenting problem; physical examination; medical decision-making (MDM); counseling; coordination of care; and time. Furthermore, history, physical examination, and MDM were all broken down into more granular elements that were summed to determine the level for each component; for example, the history of the presenting problem was defined as a chronological description of the development of the patient’s present illness, including the following elements: location, quality, severity, duration, timing, context, modifying factors, and associated signs and symptoms. Each of these categories would constitute bullet points to be summed to determine the level of history. Physical examination and MDM bullet points also would be summed to determine a proper coding level.¹¹ Understandably, this coding scheme was complicated and burdensome to medical providers.

The redefinition of the E/M codes for 2021 substantially simplified the determination of coding level and documentation.¹⁰ The revisions to the E/M office visit code descriptors and documentation standards are now centered around how physicians think and take care of patients and not on mandatory standards and checking boxes. The main changes involve MDM as the prime determinant of the coding level. Elements of MDM affecting coding for an outpatient or office visit now include only 3 components: the number and complexity of problems addressed in the encounter, the amount or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and the risk of complications or morbidity of patient management. Gone are the requirements from the earlier criteria requiring so many bullet points for the history, physical examination, and MDM.

Dermatologists may ask, “How does the new E/M coding structure affect reporting and documenting an E/M and a procedure on the same day?” The answer is that the determination of separate and distinct is basically unchanged with the new E/M codes; however, the documentation requirements for modifier -25 using the new E/M codes are simplified.

As always, the key to determining whether a separate and distinct E/M service was provided and subsequently documented is to deconstruct the medical note. All evaluation services associated with the procedure—making a clinical diagnosis or differential diagnosis, decision to perform surgery, and discussion of alternative treatments—should be removed from one’s documentation as shown in the example below. If a complete E/M service still exists, then an E/M may be billed in addition to the procedure. Physical examination of the treatment area is included in the surgical package. With the prior E/M criteria, physical examination of the procedural area could not be used again as a bullet point to count for the E/M level. However, with the new 2021 coding requirements, the documentation of a separate MDM will be sufficient to meet criteria because documentation of physical examination is not a requirement.

Modifier -25 Examples

Let’s examine a typical dermatologist medical note. An established patient presents to the dermatologist complaining of an itchy rash on the left wrist after a hiking trip. Treatment with topical hydrocortisone 1% did not help. The patient also complains of a growing tender lesion on the left elbow of 2 months’ duration. Physical examination reveals a linear vesicular eruption on the left wrist and a tender hyperkeratotic papule on the left elbow. No data is evaluated. A diagnosis of acute rhus dermatitis of the left wrist is made, and betamethasone cream is prescribed. The decision is made to perform a tangential biopsy of the lesion on the left elbow because of the suspicion for malignancy. The biopsy is performed the same day.

This case clearly illustrates performance of an E/M service in the treatment of rhus dermatitis, which is separate and distinct from the biopsy procedure; however, in evaluating whether the case meets the documentation requirements for modifier -25, the information in the medical note inclusive to the procedure’s global surgical package, including history associated with establishing the diagnosis, physical examination of the procedure area(s), and discussion of treatment options, is eliminated, leaving the following notes: An established patient presents to the dermatologist complaining of an itchy rash on the left wrist after a hiking trip. Treatment with topical hydrocortisone 1% did not help. No data is evaluated. A diagnosis of acute rhus dermatitis of the left wrist is made, and betamethasone cream is prescribed.

Because the physical examination of the body part (left arm) is included in the procedure’s global surgical package, the examination of the left wrist cannot be used as coding support for the E/M service. This makes a difference for coding level in the prior E/M coding requirements, which required examination bullet points. However, with the 2021 E/M codes, documentation of physical examination bullet points is irrelevant to the coding level. Therefore, qualifying for a modifier -25 claim is more straightforward in this case with the new code set. Because bullet points are not integral to the 2021 E/M codes, qualifying and properly documenting for a higher level of service will likely be more common in dermatology.

Final Thoughts

Frequent use of modifier -25 is a critical part of a high-quality and cost-effective dermatology practice. Same-day performance of minor procedures and E/M services allows for more rapid and efficient diagnosis and treatment of various conditions as well as minimizing unnecessary office visits. The new E/M codes for 2021 actually make the documentation of a separate and distinct E/M service less complicated because the bullet point requirements associated with the old E/M codes have been eliminated. Understanding how the new E/M code descriptors affect modifier -25 reporting and clear documentation of separate, distinct, and medically necessary E/M services will be needed due to increased insurer scrutiny and audits.

Insurers Target Modifier -25

Modifier -25 allows reporting of both a minor procedure (ie, one with a 0- or 10-day global period) and a separate and distinct evaluation and management (E/M) service on the same date of service.¹ Because of the multicomplaint nature of dermatology, the ability to report a same-day procedure and an E/M service is critical for efficient, cost-effective, and patient-centered dermatologic care. However, it is well known that the use of modifier -25 has been under notable insurer scrutiny and is a common reason for medical record audits.^2,3 Some insurers have responded to increased utilization of modifier -25 by cutting reimbursement for claims that include both a procedure and an E/M service or by denying one of the services altogether.^4-6 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also have expressed concern about this coding combination with proposed cuts to reimbursement.⁷ Moreover, the Office of Inspector General has announced a work plan to investigate the frequent utilization of E/M codes and minor procedures by dermatologists.⁸ Clearly, modifier -25 is a continued target by insurers and regulators; therefore, dermatologists will want to make sure their coding and documentation meet all requirements and are updated for the new E/M codes for 2021.

The American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology indicates that modifier -25 allows reporting of a “significant, separately identifiable evaluation and management service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional on the same day of a procedure or other service.”¹ Given that dermatology patients typically present with multiple concerns, dermatologists commonly evaluate and treat numerous conditions during one visit. Understanding what constitutes a separately identifiable E/M service is critical to bill accurately and to pass insurer audits.

Global Surgical Package

To appropriately bill both a procedure and an E/M service, the physician must indicate that the patient’s condition required an E/M service above and beyond the usual work of the procedure. The compilation of evaluation and work included in the payment for a procedure is called the global surgical package.⁹ In general, the global surgical package includes local or topical anesthesia; the surgical service/procedure itself; immediate postoperative care, including dictating the operative note; meeting/discussing the patient’s procedure with family and other physicians; and writing orders for the patient. For minor procedures (ie, those with either 0- or 10-day global periods), the surgical package also includes same-day E/M services associated with the decision to perform surgery. An appropriate history and physical examination as well as a discussion of the differential diagnosis, treatment options, and risk and benefits of treatment are all included in the payment of a minor procedure itself. Therefore, an evaluation to discuss a patient’s condition or change in condition, alternatives to treatment, or next steps after a diagnosis related to a treatment or diagnostic procedure should not be separately reported. Moreover, the fact that the patient is new to the physician is not in itself sufficient to allow reporting of an E/M service with these minor procedures. For major procedures (ie, those with 90-day postoperative periods), the decision for surgery is excluded from the global surgical package.

2021 E/M Codes Simplify Documentation

The biggest coding change of 2021 was the new E/M codes.¹⁰ Prior to this year, the descriptors of E/M services recognized 7 components to define the levels of E/M services¹¹: history and nature of the presenting problem; physical examination; medical decision-making (MDM); counseling; coordination of care; and time. Furthermore, history, physical examination, and MDM were all broken down into more granular elements that were summed to determine the level for each component; for example, the history of the presenting problem was defined as a chronological description of the development of the patient’s present illness, including the following elements: location, quality, severity, duration, timing, context, modifying factors, and associated signs and symptoms. Each of these categories would constitute bullet points to be summed to determine the level of history. Physical examination and MDM bullet points also would be summed to determine a proper coding level.¹¹ Understandably, this coding scheme was complicated and burdensome to medical providers.

The redefinition of the E/M codes for 2021 substantially simplified the determination of coding level and documentation.¹⁰ The revisions to the E/M office visit code descriptors and documentation standards are now centered around how physicians think and take care of patients and not on mandatory standards and checking boxes. The main changes involve MDM as the prime determinant of the coding level. Elements of MDM affecting coding for an outpatient or office visit now include only 3 components: the number and complexity of problems addressed in the encounter, the amount or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and the risk of complications or morbidity of patient management. Gone are the requirements from the earlier criteria requiring so many bullet points for the history, physical examination, and MDM.

Dermatologists may ask, “How does the new E/M coding structure affect reporting and documenting an E/M and a procedure on the same day?” The answer is that the determination of separate and distinct is basically unchanged with the new E/M codes; however, the documentation requirements for modifier -25 using the new E/M codes are simplified.

As always, the key to determining whether a separate and distinct E/M service was provided and subsequently documented is to deconstruct the medical note. All evaluation services associated with the procedure—making a clinical diagnosis or differential diagnosis, decision to perform surgery, and discussion of alternative treatments—should be removed from one’s documentation as shown in the example below. If a complete E/M service still exists, then an E/M may be billed in addition to the procedure. Physical examination of the treatment area is included in the surgical package. With the prior E/M criteria, physical examination of the procedural area could not be used again as a bullet point to count for the E/M level. However, with the new 2021 coding requirements, the documentation of a separate MDM will be sufficient to meet criteria because documentation of physical examination is not a requirement.

Modifier -25 Examples

Let’s examine a typical dermatologist medical note. An established patient presents to the dermatologist complaining of an itchy rash on the left wrist after a hiking trip. Treatment with topical hydrocortisone 1% did not help. The patient also complains of a growing tender lesion on the left elbow of 2 months’ duration. Physical examination reveals a linear vesicular eruption on the left wrist and a tender hyperkeratotic papule on the left elbow. No data is evaluated. A diagnosis of acute rhus dermatitis of the left wrist is made, and betamethasone cream is prescribed. The decision is made to perform a tangential biopsy of the lesion on the left elbow because of the suspicion for malignancy. The biopsy is performed the same day.

This case clearly illustrates performance of an E/M service in the treatment of rhus dermatitis, which is separate and distinct from the biopsy procedure; however, in evaluating whether the case meets the documentation requirements for modifier -25, the information in the medical note inclusive to the procedure’s global surgical package, including history associated with establishing the diagnosis, physical examination of the procedure area(s), and discussion of treatment options, is eliminated, leaving the following notes: An established patient presents to the dermatologist complaining of an itchy rash on the left wrist after a hiking trip. Treatment with topical hydrocortisone 1% did not help. No data is evaluated. A diagnosis of acute rhus dermatitis of the left wrist is made, and betamethasone cream is prescribed.

Because the physical examination of the body part (left arm) is included in the procedure’s global surgical package, the examination of the left wrist cannot be used as coding support for the E/M service. This makes a difference for coding level in the prior E/M coding requirements, which required examination bullet points. However, with the 2021 E/M codes, documentation of physical examination bullet points is irrelevant to the coding level. Therefore, qualifying for a modifier -25 claim is more straightforward in this case with the new code set. Because bullet points are not integral to the 2021 E/M codes, qualifying and properly documenting for a higher level of service will likely be more common in dermatology.

Final Thoughts

Frequent use of modifier -25 is a critical part of a high-quality and cost-effective dermatology practice. Same-day performance of minor procedures and E/M services allows for more rapid and efficient diagnosis and treatment of various conditions as well as minimizing unnecessary office visits. The new E/M codes for 2021 actually make the documentation of a separate and distinct E/M service less complicated because the bullet point requirements associated with the old E/M codes have been eliminated. Understanding how the new E/M code descriptors affect modifier -25 reporting and clear documentation of separate, distinct, and medically necessary E/M services will be needed due to increased insurer scrutiny and audits.