Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.
“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.
Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.
The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.
Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.
Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.
The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.
Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.
The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.
The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.
“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.
Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.
The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.
Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.
Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.
The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.
Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.
The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.
The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.
“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.
Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.
The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.
Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.
Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.
The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.
Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.
The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.
The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?
Dr. Jeffrey Benabio
I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.
In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.
However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.
Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?
I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.
I’m sincerely yours,
Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?
Dr. Jeffrey Benabio
I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.
In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.
However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.
Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?
I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.
I’m sincerely yours,
Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Dear big-tech AI company,
Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?
Dr. Jeffrey Benabio
I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.
In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.
However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.
Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?
I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.
I’m sincerely yours,
Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Synthetic snake venom is one of an increasingly wide range of bioactive ingredients that have been undergoing validation and incorporation into Korean cosmeceutical formulations.1 This column discusses some of the emerging data in this novel area of medical and dermatologic research. For more detailed information, a review on the therapeutic potential of peptides in animal venom was published in 2003 (Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003 Oct;2[10]:790-802).
The potential of peptides found in snake venom
Snake venom is known to contain carbohydrates, nucleosides, amino acids, and lipids, as well as enzymatic and nonenzymatic proteins and peptides, with proteins and peptides comprising the primary components.2
There are many different types of peptides in snake venom. The peptides and the small proteins found in snake venoms are known to confer a wide range of biologic activities, including antimicrobial, antihypertensive, analgesic, antitumor, and analgesic, in addition to several others. These peptides have been included in antiaging skin care products.3Pennington et al. have observed that venom-derived peptides appear to have potential as effective therapeutic agents in cosmetic formulations.4 In particular, Waglerin peptides appear to act with a Botox-like paralyzing effect and purportedly diminish skin wrinkles.5
Issues with efficacy of snake venom in skin care products
As with many skin care ingredients, what is seen in cell cultures or a laboratory setting may not translate to real life use. Shelf life, issues during manufacturing, interaction with other ingredients in the product, interactions with other products in the regimen, exposure to air and light, and difficulty of penetration can all affect efficacy. With snake venom in particular, stability and penetration make the efficacy in skin care products questionable.
The problem with many peptides in skin care products is that they are usually larger than 500 Dalton and, therefore, cannot penetrate into the skin. Bos et al. described the “500 Dalton rule” in 2000.6 Regardless of these issues, there are several publications looking at snake venom that will be discussed here.
Antimicrobial and wound healing activity
In 2011, Samy et al. found that phospholipase A2 purified from crotalid snake venom expressed antibacterial activity in vitro against various clinical human pathogens. The investigators synthesized peptides based on the sequence homology and ascertained that the synthetic peptides exhibited potent microbicidal properties against Gram-negative and Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus) bacteria with diminished toxicity against normal human cells. Subsequently, the investigators used a BALB/c mouse model to show that peptide-treated animals displayed accelerated healing of full-thickness skin wounds, with increased re-epithelialization, collagen production, and angiogenesis. They concluded that the protein/peptide complex developed from snake venoms was effective at fostering wound healing.7
In that same year, Samy et al. showed in vivo that the snake venom phospholipase A₂ (svPLA₂) proteins from Viperidae and Elapidae snakes activated innate immunity in the animals tested, providing protection against skin infection caused by S. aureus. In vitro experiments also revealed that svPLA₂ proteins dose dependently exerted bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects on S. aureus.8 In 2015, Al-Asmari et al. comparatively assessed the venoms of two cobras,four vipers, a standard antibiotic, and an antimycotic as antimicrobial agents. The methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacterium was the most susceptible, followed by Gram-positive S. aureus, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. While the antibiotic vancomycin was more effective against P. aeruginosa, the venoms more efficiently suppressed the resistant bacteria. The snake venoms had minimal effect on the fungus Candida albicans. The investigators concluded that the snake venoms exhibited antibacterial activity comparable to antibiotics and were more efficient in tackling resistant bacteria.9 In a review of animal venoms in 2017, Samy et al. reported that snake venom–derived synthetic peptide/snake cathelicidin exhibits robust antimicrobial and wound healing capacity, despite its instability and risk, and presents as a possible new treatment for S. aureus infections. They indicated that antimicrobial peptides derived from various animal venoms, including snakes, spiders, and scorpions, are in early experimental and preclinical development stages, and these cysteine-rich substances share hydrophobic alpha-helices or beta-sheets that yield lethal pores and membrane-impairing results on bacteria.10
New drugs and emerging indications
An ingredient that is said to mimic waglerin-1, a snake venom–derived peptide, is the main active ingredient in the Hanskin Syn-Ake Peptide Renewal Mask, a Korean product, which reportedly promotes facial muscle relaxation and wrinkle reduction, as the waglerin-1 provokes neuromuscular blockade via reversible antagonism of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.2,4,5
Waheed et al. reported in 2017 that recent innovations in molecular research have led to scientific harnessing of the various proteins and peptides found in snake venoms to render them salutary, rather than toxic. Most of the drug development focuses on coagulopathy, hemostasis, and anticancer functions, but research continues in other areas.11 According to An et al., several studies have also been performed on the use of snake venom to treat atopic dermatitis.12
Conclusion
Snake venom is a substance known primarily for its extreme toxicity, but it seems to offer promise for having beneficial effects in medicine. Due to its size and instability, it is doubtful that snake venom will have utility as a topical application in the dermatologic arsenal. In spite of the lack of convincing evidence, a search on Amazon.com brings up dozens of various skin care products containing snake venom. Much more research is necessary, of course, to see if there are methods to facilitate entry of snake venom into the dermis and if this is even desirable.
Snake venom is, in fact, my favorite example of a skin care ingredient that is a waste of money in skin care products. Do you have any favorite “charlatan skincare ingredients”? If so, feel free to contact me, and I will write a column. As dermatologists, we have a responsibility to debunk skin care marketing claims not supported by scientific evidence. I am here to help.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
Synthetic snake venom is one of an increasingly wide range of bioactive ingredients that have been undergoing validation and incorporation into Korean cosmeceutical formulations.1 This column discusses some of the emerging data in this novel area of medical and dermatologic research. For more detailed information, a review on the therapeutic potential of peptides in animal venom was published in 2003 (Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003 Oct;2[10]:790-802).
The potential of peptides found in snake venom
Snake venom is known to contain carbohydrates, nucleosides, amino acids, and lipids, as well as enzymatic and nonenzymatic proteins and peptides, with proteins and peptides comprising the primary components.2
There are many different types of peptides in snake venom. The peptides and the small proteins found in snake venoms are known to confer a wide range of biologic activities, including antimicrobial, antihypertensive, analgesic, antitumor, and analgesic, in addition to several others. These peptides have been included in antiaging skin care products.3Pennington et al. have observed that venom-derived peptides appear to have potential as effective therapeutic agents in cosmetic formulations.4 In particular, Waglerin peptides appear to act with a Botox-like paralyzing effect and purportedly diminish skin wrinkles.5
Issues with efficacy of snake venom in skin care products
As with many skin care ingredients, what is seen in cell cultures or a laboratory setting may not translate to real life use. Shelf life, issues during manufacturing, interaction with other ingredients in the product, interactions with other products in the regimen, exposure to air and light, and difficulty of penetration can all affect efficacy. With snake venom in particular, stability and penetration make the efficacy in skin care products questionable.
The problem with many peptides in skin care products is that they are usually larger than 500 Dalton and, therefore, cannot penetrate into the skin. Bos et al. described the “500 Dalton rule” in 2000.6 Regardless of these issues, there are several publications looking at snake venom that will be discussed here.
Antimicrobial and wound healing activity
In 2011, Samy et al. found that phospholipase A2 purified from crotalid snake venom expressed antibacterial activity in vitro against various clinical human pathogens. The investigators synthesized peptides based on the sequence homology and ascertained that the synthetic peptides exhibited potent microbicidal properties against Gram-negative and Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus) bacteria with diminished toxicity against normal human cells. Subsequently, the investigators used a BALB/c mouse model to show that peptide-treated animals displayed accelerated healing of full-thickness skin wounds, with increased re-epithelialization, collagen production, and angiogenesis. They concluded that the protein/peptide complex developed from snake venoms was effective at fostering wound healing.7
In that same year, Samy et al. showed in vivo that the snake venom phospholipase A₂ (svPLA₂) proteins from Viperidae and Elapidae snakes activated innate immunity in the animals tested, providing protection against skin infection caused by S. aureus. In vitro experiments also revealed that svPLA₂ proteins dose dependently exerted bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects on S. aureus.8 In 2015, Al-Asmari et al. comparatively assessed the venoms of two cobras,four vipers, a standard antibiotic, and an antimycotic as antimicrobial agents. The methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacterium was the most susceptible, followed by Gram-positive S. aureus, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. While the antibiotic vancomycin was more effective against P. aeruginosa, the venoms more efficiently suppressed the resistant bacteria. The snake venoms had minimal effect on the fungus Candida albicans. The investigators concluded that the snake venoms exhibited antibacterial activity comparable to antibiotics and were more efficient in tackling resistant bacteria.9 In a review of animal venoms in 2017, Samy et al. reported that snake venom–derived synthetic peptide/snake cathelicidin exhibits robust antimicrobial and wound healing capacity, despite its instability and risk, and presents as a possible new treatment for S. aureus infections. They indicated that antimicrobial peptides derived from various animal venoms, including snakes, spiders, and scorpions, are in early experimental and preclinical development stages, and these cysteine-rich substances share hydrophobic alpha-helices or beta-sheets that yield lethal pores and membrane-impairing results on bacteria.10
New drugs and emerging indications
An ingredient that is said to mimic waglerin-1, a snake venom–derived peptide, is the main active ingredient in the Hanskin Syn-Ake Peptide Renewal Mask, a Korean product, which reportedly promotes facial muscle relaxation and wrinkle reduction, as the waglerin-1 provokes neuromuscular blockade via reversible antagonism of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.2,4,5
Waheed et al. reported in 2017 that recent innovations in molecular research have led to scientific harnessing of the various proteins and peptides found in snake venoms to render them salutary, rather than toxic. Most of the drug development focuses on coagulopathy, hemostasis, and anticancer functions, but research continues in other areas.11 According to An et al., several studies have also been performed on the use of snake venom to treat atopic dermatitis.12
Conclusion
Snake venom is a substance known primarily for its extreme toxicity, but it seems to offer promise for having beneficial effects in medicine. Due to its size and instability, it is doubtful that snake venom will have utility as a topical application in the dermatologic arsenal. In spite of the lack of convincing evidence, a search on Amazon.com brings up dozens of various skin care products containing snake venom. Much more research is necessary, of course, to see if there are methods to facilitate entry of snake venom into the dermis and if this is even desirable.
Snake venom is, in fact, my favorite example of a skin care ingredient that is a waste of money in skin care products. Do you have any favorite “charlatan skincare ingredients”? If so, feel free to contact me, and I will write a column. As dermatologists, we have a responsibility to debunk skin care marketing claims not supported by scientific evidence. I am here to help.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
Synthetic snake venom is one of an increasingly wide range of bioactive ingredients that have been undergoing validation and incorporation into Korean cosmeceutical formulations.1 This column discusses some of the emerging data in this novel area of medical and dermatologic research. For more detailed information, a review on the therapeutic potential of peptides in animal venom was published in 2003 (Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003 Oct;2[10]:790-802).
The potential of peptides found in snake venom
Snake venom is known to contain carbohydrates, nucleosides, amino acids, and lipids, as well as enzymatic and nonenzymatic proteins and peptides, with proteins and peptides comprising the primary components.2
There are many different types of peptides in snake venom. The peptides and the small proteins found in snake venoms are known to confer a wide range of biologic activities, including antimicrobial, antihypertensive, analgesic, antitumor, and analgesic, in addition to several others. These peptides have been included in antiaging skin care products.3Pennington et al. have observed that venom-derived peptides appear to have potential as effective therapeutic agents in cosmetic formulations.4 In particular, Waglerin peptides appear to act with a Botox-like paralyzing effect and purportedly diminish skin wrinkles.5
Issues with efficacy of snake venom in skin care products
As with many skin care ingredients, what is seen in cell cultures or a laboratory setting may not translate to real life use. Shelf life, issues during manufacturing, interaction with other ingredients in the product, interactions with other products in the regimen, exposure to air and light, and difficulty of penetration can all affect efficacy. With snake venom in particular, stability and penetration make the efficacy in skin care products questionable.
The problem with many peptides in skin care products is that they are usually larger than 500 Dalton and, therefore, cannot penetrate into the skin. Bos et al. described the “500 Dalton rule” in 2000.6 Regardless of these issues, there are several publications looking at snake venom that will be discussed here.
Antimicrobial and wound healing activity
In 2011, Samy et al. found that phospholipase A2 purified from crotalid snake venom expressed antibacterial activity in vitro against various clinical human pathogens. The investigators synthesized peptides based on the sequence homology and ascertained that the synthetic peptides exhibited potent microbicidal properties against Gram-negative and Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus) bacteria with diminished toxicity against normal human cells. Subsequently, the investigators used a BALB/c mouse model to show that peptide-treated animals displayed accelerated healing of full-thickness skin wounds, with increased re-epithelialization, collagen production, and angiogenesis. They concluded that the protein/peptide complex developed from snake venoms was effective at fostering wound healing.7
In that same year, Samy et al. showed in vivo that the snake venom phospholipase A₂ (svPLA₂) proteins from Viperidae and Elapidae snakes activated innate immunity in the animals tested, providing protection against skin infection caused by S. aureus. In vitro experiments also revealed that svPLA₂ proteins dose dependently exerted bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects on S. aureus.8 In 2015, Al-Asmari et al. comparatively assessed the venoms of two cobras,four vipers, a standard antibiotic, and an antimycotic as antimicrobial agents. The methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacterium was the most susceptible, followed by Gram-positive S. aureus, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. While the antibiotic vancomycin was more effective against P. aeruginosa, the venoms more efficiently suppressed the resistant bacteria. The snake venoms had minimal effect on the fungus Candida albicans. The investigators concluded that the snake venoms exhibited antibacterial activity comparable to antibiotics and were more efficient in tackling resistant bacteria.9 In a review of animal venoms in 2017, Samy et al. reported that snake venom–derived synthetic peptide/snake cathelicidin exhibits robust antimicrobial and wound healing capacity, despite its instability and risk, and presents as a possible new treatment for S. aureus infections. They indicated that antimicrobial peptides derived from various animal venoms, including snakes, spiders, and scorpions, are in early experimental and preclinical development stages, and these cysteine-rich substances share hydrophobic alpha-helices or beta-sheets that yield lethal pores and membrane-impairing results on bacteria.10
New drugs and emerging indications
An ingredient that is said to mimic waglerin-1, a snake venom–derived peptide, is the main active ingredient in the Hanskin Syn-Ake Peptide Renewal Mask, a Korean product, which reportedly promotes facial muscle relaxation and wrinkle reduction, as the waglerin-1 provokes neuromuscular blockade via reversible antagonism of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.2,4,5
Waheed et al. reported in 2017 that recent innovations in molecular research have led to scientific harnessing of the various proteins and peptides found in snake venoms to render them salutary, rather than toxic. Most of the drug development focuses on coagulopathy, hemostasis, and anticancer functions, but research continues in other areas.11 According to An et al., several studies have also been performed on the use of snake venom to treat atopic dermatitis.12
Conclusion
Snake venom is a substance known primarily for its extreme toxicity, but it seems to offer promise for having beneficial effects in medicine. Due to its size and instability, it is doubtful that snake venom will have utility as a topical application in the dermatologic arsenal. In spite of the lack of convincing evidence, a search on Amazon.com brings up dozens of various skin care products containing snake venom. Much more research is necessary, of course, to see if there are methods to facilitate entry of snake venom into the dermis and if this is even desirable.
Snake venom is, in fact, my favorite example of a skin care ingredient that is a waste of money in skin care products. Do you have any favorite “charlatan skincare ingredients”? If so, feel free to contact me, and I will write a column. As dermatologists, we have a responsibility to debunk skin care marketing claims not supported by scientific evidence. I am here to help.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.
Dr. Joseph S. Eastern
It is a good reminder for the rest of us: Your malpractice policy covers only allegations of malpractice, which is generally defined as negligence or deviation from the standard of care. This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”
When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.
The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”
She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.
But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.
The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.
In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.
If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.
Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.
If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”
The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.
Dr. Joseph S. Eastern
It is a good reminder for the rest of us: Your malpractice policy covers only allegations of malpractice, which is generally defined as negligence or deviation from the standard of care. This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”
When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.
The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”
She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.
But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.
The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.
In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.
If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.
Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.
If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”
The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.
Dr. Joseph S. Eastern
It is a good reminder for the rest of us: Your malpractice policy covers only allegations of malpractice, which is generally defined as negligence or deviation from the standard of care. This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”
When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.
The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”
She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.
But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.
The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.
In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.
If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.
Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.
If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”
The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Worldwide, nearly 8% of men who have sex with men (MSM) may have syphilis, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests. This estimate, generated from 275 studies across 77 countries, is 15 times greater than the most recent estimates of syphilis prevalence in men in a general population.
“That disparity is absolutely unacceptable,” Matthew Chico, PhD, associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and senior author of the review, said in an interview.
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to reduce the global prevalence of syphilis by 90% by 2030, an ambitious goal set in 2016, recent research suggests syphilis numbers are moving in the opposite direction. Cases in the United States rose 74% between 2015 and 2019, and other nations, such as Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, are seeing similar trends.
Syphilis prevalence is generally higher in MSM, largely in subpopulations of men who have multiple sexual partners, Kenneth Mayer, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Mayer is medical research director at the Fenway Institute, Boston, and was not involved with the study.
Health literacy, lack of access to care, and medical mistrust can all be challenges to screening, identifying, and treating the infection in this population.
Reducing syphilis cases will require focusing interventions on higher-risk groups such as MSM, said Dr. Chico; however, there was “a real dearth in knowledge about the most likely prevalence of syphilis among MSM on a global level,” he said.
To help fill in the gaps, Dr. Chico and his research team collected studies that included syphilis prevalence data for MSM published between Jan. 1, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2020. Researchers excluded studies that included only MSM living with HIV, injection drug users, patients who routinely visit sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, and people seeking care only for STIs or other genital symptoms, because these studies would have skewed global syphilis prevalence estimates higher.
Their review, published July 8 in The Lancet Global Health, found that the pooled global prevalence of syphilis from 2000-2020 in MSM was 7.5%. It ranged from 1.9% in Australia and New Zealand to 10.6% in Latin America and the Caribbean. In comparison, the WHO estimates that globally, 0.5% of men in a general population have syphilis, a 15-fold difference.
This elevated estimate is not surprising, and the review provides a more international view of syphilis. Earlier attempts to estimate the prevalence of syphilis among MSM were generally conducted in higher-income countries such as the United States, Dr. Mayer said. “It’s important that clinicians recognize that this is a global health issue, so they can do the appropriate screening.”
The review found that regions in which the prevalence of HIV was above 5% had higher rates of syphilis (8.7%) compared to regions in which the prevalence of HIV was below 5% (6.6%). Pooled syphilis prevalence estimates were also higher for lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries (8.7% and 8.6%, respectively).
Global syphilis prevalence dipped from 8.9% in studies from 2000 to 2009 to 6.6% in studies from 2010 to 2020. In Europe, Northern America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), syphilis prevalence estimates for 2015-2020 were higher compared with 2010-2014.
The authors acknowledged that there were some limitations to the study, particularly that regions of Eastern and Southeastern Asia contributed more than half (54.5%) of the global data points used in the study and accounted for more than 82% of the study’s participants. This highlights the lack of data from other regions around the world, Dr. Chico said.
Dr. Chico said these findings “serve as a clarion call to action” to focus interventions on groups at higher risk for syphilis, such as MSM, in the effort to drastically reduce syphilis cases around the world. Dr. Mayer agrees. “[Syphilis] is a readily diagnosable and treatable infection,” he said. “It definitely is something that we should be able to get a handle on, but that requires paying attention to the different subgroups who have particularly high rates of the infection.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Worldwide, nearly 8% of men who have sex with men (MSM) may have syphilis, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests. This estimate, generated from 275 studies across 77 countries, is 15 times greater than the most recent estimates of syphilis prevalence in men in a general population.
“That disparity is absolutely unacceptable,” Matthew Chico, PhD, associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and senior author of the review, said in an interview.
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to reduce the global prevalence of syphilis by 90% by 2030, an ambitious goal set in 2016, recent research suggests syphilis numbers are moving in the opposite direction. Cases in the United States rose 74% between 2015 and 2019, and other nations, such as Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, are seeing similar trends.
Syphilis prevalence is generally higher in MSM, largely in subpopulations of men who have multiple sexual partners, Kenneth Mayer, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Mayer is medical research director at the Fenway Institute, Boston, and was not involved with the study.
Health literacy, lack of access to care, and medical mistrust can all be challenges to screening, identifying, and treating the infection in this population.
Reducing syphilis cases will require focusing interventions on higher-risk groups such as MSM, said Dr. Chico; however, there was “a real dearth in knowledge about the most likely prevalence of syphilis among MSM on a global level,” he said.
To help fill in the gaps, Dr. Chico and his research team collected studies that included syphilis prevalence data for MSM published between Jan. 1, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2020. Researchers excluded studies that included only MSM living with HIV, injection drug users, patients who routinely visit sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, and people seeking care only for STIs or other genital symptoms, because these studies would have skewed global syphilis prevalence estimates higher.
Their review, published July 8 in The Lancet Global Health, found that the pooled global prevalence of syphilis from 2000-2020 in MSM was 7.5%. It ranged from 1.9% in Australia and New Zealand to 10.6% in Latin America and the Caribbean. In comparison, the WHO estimates that globally, 0.5% of men in a general population have syphilis, a 15-fold difference.
This elevated estimate is not surprising, and the review provides a more international view of syphilis. Earlier attempts to estimate the prevalence of syphilis among MSM were generally conducted in higher-income countries such as the United States, Dr. Mayer said. “It’s important that clinicians recognize that this is a global health issue, so they can do the appropriate screening.”
The review found that regions in which the prevalence of HIV was above 5% had higher rates of syphilis (8.7%) compared to regions in which the prevalence of HIV was below 5% (6.6%). Pooled syphilis prevalence estimates were also higher for lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries (8.7% and 8.6%, respectively).
Global syphilis prevalence dipped from 8.9% in studies from 2000 to 2009 to 6.6% in studies from 2010 to 2020. In Europe, Northern America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), syphilis prevalence estimates for 2015-2020 were higher compared with 2010-2014.
The authors acknowledged that there were some limitations to the study, particularly that regions of Eastern and Southeastern Asia contributed more than half (54.5%) of the global data points used in the study and accounted for more than 82% of the study’s participants. This highlights the lack of data from other regions around the world, Dr. Chico said.
Dr. Chico said these findings “serve as a clarion call to action” to focus interventions on groups at higher risk for syphilis, such as MSM, in the effort to drastically reduce syphilis cases around the world. Dr. Mayer agrees. “[Syphilis] is a readily diagnosable and treatable infection,” he said. “It definitely is something that we should be able to get a handle on, but that requires paying attention to the different subgroups who have particularly high rates of the infection.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Worldwide, nearly 8% of men who have sex with men (MSM) may have syphilis, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests. This estimate, generated from 275 studies across 77 countries, is 15 times greater than the most recent estimates of syphilis prevalence in men in a general population.
“That disparity is absolutely unacceptable,” Matthew Chico, PhD, associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and senior author of the review, said in an interview.
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to reduce the global prevalence of syphilis by 90% by 2030, an ambitious goal set in 2016, recent research suggests syphilis numbers are moving in the opposite direction. Cases in the United States rose 74% between 2015 and 2019, and other nations, such as Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, are seeing similar trends.
Syphilis prevalence is generally higher in MSM, largely in subpopulations of men who have multiple sexual partners, Kenneth Mayer, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Mayer is medical research director at the Fenway Institute, Boston, and was not involved with the study.
Health literacy, lack of access to care, and medical mistrust can all be challenges to screening, identifying, and treating the infection in this population.
Reducing syphilis cases will require focusing interventions on higher-risk groups such as MSM, said Dr. Chico; however, there was “a real dearth in knowledge about the most likely prevalence of syphilis among MSM on a global level,” he said.
To help fill in the gaps, Dr. Chico and his research team collected studies that included syphilis prevalence data for MSM published between Jan. 1, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2020. Researchers excluded studies that included only MSM living with HIV, injection drug users, patients who routinely visit sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, and people seeking care only for STIs or other genital symptoms, because these studies would have skewed global syphilis prevalence estimates higher.
Their review, published July 8 in The Lancet Global Health, found that the pooled global prevalence of syphilis from 2000-2020 in MSM was 7.5%. It ranged from 1.9% in Australia and New Zealand to 10.6% in Latin America and the Caribbean. In comparison, the WHO estimates that globally, 0.5% of men in a general population have syphilis, a 15-fold difference.
This elevated estimate is not surprising, and the review provides a more international view of syphilis. Earlier attempts to estimate the prevalence of syphilis among MSM were generally conducted in higher-income countries such as the United States, Dr. Mayer said. “It’s important that clinicians recognize that this is a global health issue, so they can do the appropriate screening.”
The review found that regions in which the prevalence of HIV was above 5% had higher rates of syphilis (8.7%) compared to regions in which the prevalence of HIV was below 5% (6.6%). Pooled syphilis prevalence estimates were also higher for lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries (8.7% and 8.6%, respectively).
Global syphilis prevalence dipped from 8.9% in studies from 2000 to 2009 to 6.6% in studies from 2010 to 2020. In Europe, Northern America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), syphilis prevalence estimates for 2015-2020 were higher compared with 2010-2014.
The authors acknowledged that there were some limitations to the study, particularly that regions of Eastern and Southeastern Asia contributed more than half (54.5%) of the global data points used in the study and accounted for more than 82% of the study’s participants. This highlights the lack of data from other regions around the world, Dr. Chico said.
Dr. Chico said these findings “serve as a clarion call to action” to focus interventions on groups at higher risk for syphilis, such as MSM, in the effort to drastically reduce syphilis cases around the world. Dr. Mayer agrees. “[Syphilis] is a readily diagnosable and treatable infection,” he said. “It definitely is something that we should be able to get a handle on, but that requires paying attention to the different subgroups who have particularly high rates of the infection.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:
Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?
At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.
State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.
So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.
The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.
And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.
HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.
Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.
Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.
Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
Employer options
So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:
Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.
Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.
Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:
Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?
At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.
State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.
So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.
The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.
And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.
HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.
Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.
Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.
Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
Employer options
So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:
Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.
Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.
Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:
Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?
At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.
State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.
So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.
The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.
And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.
HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.
Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.
Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.
Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
Employer options
So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:
Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.
Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.
Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.
The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.
Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.
Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.
Dr. Jack Resneck Jr.
Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.
Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients
Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”
Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.
She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.
Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”
One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.
The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.
Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”
Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization
In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.
The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:
Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.
The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.
The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.
Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.
Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.
Dr. Jack Resneck Jr.
Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.
Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients
Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”
Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.
She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.
Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”
One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.
The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.
Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”
Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization
In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.
The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:
Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.
The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.
The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.
Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.
Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.
Dr. Jack Resneck Jr.
Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.
Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients
Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”
Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.
She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.
Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”
One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.
The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.
Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”
Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization
In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.
The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:
Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.
The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Leishmaniasis is caused by protozoa of the family Trypanosomatidae, called Leishmania. The vector is a sandfly infected with the protozoa.1
The three main forms of leishmaniasis – cutaneous, mucocutaneous, or visceral – varies with the species of organism involved, the geographic distribution, and the immune response of the patient. A majority of the cases seen in the United States are from patients who contracted the disease elsewhere, particularly from Peru and Brazil.2Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is categorized as Old World (Baghdad boil, leishmaniasis tropica) or New World (uta, pian bois, bay sore, chiclero ulcer).3,4
Lesions can vary from asymptomatic to severe. The initial lesion typically develops within weeks or months, and presents as an erythematous papule that is seen at the bite site.3 The papule evolves into a nodule or plaque that may ulcerate and crust.3 The ulcer can be distinguished by a raised and distinct border. In older stages, atrophic scarring may be seen. In some cases, the lesions may present years after exposure, because of immunosuppression or trauma.
Histology of CL reveals tuberculoid granulomas with parasitized histiocytes present. Amastigotes with distinct nuclei and kinetoplasts characterize Leishmania.2 In addition to histology, the biopsy may be sent for the press-imprint-smear method (PIS). In a study of 75 patients, the PIS method showed a higher sensitivity, as well as being a less costly and more rapid option for diagnosis.5
The treatment depends on the severity of the lesion and the species of the Leishmania genus. Mild lesions may resolve spontaneously. Topical imiquimod, cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and heat therapy may aid in the healing process.5 Systemic azole antifungal medications, miltefosine, and amphotericin B, and pentamidine may be used for more persistent lesions. In very severe cases, pentavalent antimonials (sodium stibogluconate, Pentostam) may be administered intravenously, although there is a high occurrence of recorded side effects.2
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin
This case and the photos were submitted by Sabrina Liao, BS, University of California, San Diego; and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology The case was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Leishmaniasis is caused by protozoa of the family Trypanosomatidae, called Leishmania. The vector is a sandfly infected with the protozoa.1
The three main forms of leishmaniasis – cutaneous, mucocutaneous, or visceral – varies with the species of organism involved, the geographic distribution, and the immune response of the patient. A majority of the cases seen in the United States are from patients who contracted the disease elsewhere, particularly from Peru and Brazil.2Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is categorized as Old World (Baghdad boil, leishmaniasis tropica) or New World (uta, pian bois, bay sore, chiclero ulcer).3,4
Lesions can vary from asymptomatic to severe. The initial lesion typically develops within weeks or months, and presents as an erythematous papule that is seen at the bite site.3 The papule evolves into a nodule or plaque that may ulcerate and crust.3 The ulcer can be distinguished by a raised and distinct border. In older stages, atrophic scarring may be seen. In some cases, the lesions may present years after exposure, because of immunosuppression or trauma.
Histology of CL reveals tuberculoid granulomas with parasitized histiocytes present. Amastigotes with distinct nuclei and kinetoplasts characterize Leishmania.2 In addition to histology, the biopsy may be sent for the press-imprint-smear method (PIS). In a study of 75 patients, the PIS method showed a higher sensitivity, as well as being a less costly and more rapid option for diagnosis.5
The treatment depends on the severity of the lesion and the species of the Leishmania genus. Mild lesions may resolve spontaneously. Topical imiquimod, cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and heat therapy may aid in the healing process.5 Systemic azole antifungal medications, miltefosine, and amphotericin B, and pentamidine may be used for more persistent lesions. In very severe cases, pentavalent antimonials (sodium stibogluconate, Pentostam) may be administered intravenously, although there is a high occurrence of recorded side effects.2
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin
This case and the photos were submitted by Sabrina Liao, BS, University of California, San Diego; and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology The case was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Leishmaniasis is caused by protozoa of the family Trypanosomatidae, called Leishmania. The vector is a sandfly infected with the protozoa.1
The three main forms of leishmaniasis – cutaneous, mucocutaneous, or visceral – varies with the species of organism involved, the geographic distribution, and the immune response of the patient. A majority of the cases seen in the United States are from patients who contracted the disease elsewhere, particularly from Peru and Brazil.2Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is categorized as Old World (Baghdad boil, leishmaniasis tropica) or New World (uta, pian bois, bay sore, chiclero ulcer).3,4
Lesions can vary from asymptomatic to severe. The initial lesion typically develops within weeks or months, and presents as an erythematous papule that is seen at the bite site.3 The papule evolves into a nodule or plaque that may ulcerate and crust.3 The ulcer can be distinguished by a raised and distinct border. In older stages, atrophic scarring may be seen. In some cases, the lesions may present years after exposure, because of immunosuppression or trauma.
Histology of CL reveals tuberculoid granulomas with parasitized histiocytes present. Amastigotes with distinct nuclei and kinetoplasts characterize Leishmania.2 In addition to histology, the biopsy may be sent for the press-imprint-smear method (PIS). In a study of 75 patients, the PIS method showed a higher sensitivity, as well as being a less costly and more rapid option for diagnosis.5
The treatment depends on the severity of the lesion and the species of the Leishmania genus. Mild lesions may resolve spontaneously. Topical imiquimod, cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and heat therapy may aid in the healing process.5 Systemic azole antifungal medications, miltefosine, and amphotericin B, and pentamidine may be used for more persistent lesions. In very severe cases, pentavalent antimonials (sodium stibogluconate, Pentostam) may be administered intravenously, although there is a high occurrence of recorded side effects.2
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin
This case and the photos were submitted by Sabrina Liao, BS, University of California, San Diego; and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology The case was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
A healthy family (33-year-old mother, 35-year-old father, and their 4-year-old son) from Sierre Leone who had been living in Brazil presented to the emergency department with asymptomatic crusted plaques on their extremities. The child also had a crusted plaque on his chin. Three months prior to presentation, the family had been walking in the jungles of Colombia and Panama. The lesions began as small erythematous papules that developed into crusted ulcerations and then scaly patches and plaques.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Consolidated Pubs: Do Not Show Source Publication Logo
Traction alopecia (TA)--one of the most common types of hair loss in Black women (although not exclusive to Black women)--is reversible when early corrective measures are taken; if chronic tension continues, however, permanent scarring alopecia ensues. Dermatologists can prevent worsening of this distressing hair loss. Due to a dearth of training among dermatologists in conditions occurring in patients with tightly coiled hair, it is imperative to add practical methods to the body of dermatology literature, with the goal of enhancing cultural humility.
Hairstyling among Black women often is a lengthy process and often results in relationship bonding with the hair care giver, in turn imparting hair care traditions to the next generation. Therefore, a well-received discussion about TA prevention not only has an impact on the patient but potentially on a multigenerational family of women and friends. We present a memory aid for discussing TA, with a focus on cultural humility and patient-centered communication.
Factors contributing to the risk of TA are hairstyles and hair care practices commonly used in Black individuals, including braids, locs, weaves, wigs, and chemical straightening.1 These styles often are worn to increase hair manageability or as a creative expression of beauty.
Discussing TA can be distressing for physicians and patients, especially in the setting of hair texture discordance. In a study that surveyed Black patients' perception of their dermatologic care both in and outside of a skin of color clinic, 71% of respondents (12/17) said that they prefer a race-concordant dermatologist. Some respondents reported that non-skin of color clinic dermatologists examined their hair with the end of a pencil or not at all; patients interpreted these interactions as disrespectful and racially insensitive.2 Another study found that only 30.2% (19/63) of dermatology chief residents and 12.2% (5/41) of program directors reported a specific rotation during which residents gained experience treating skin of color patients.3
Due to a paucity of training in diagnosing and treating patients with tightly coiled hair who experience hair loss, some physicians might feel uncomfortable caring for patients who have tightly coiled hair. Although many Black patients prefer to see a race-concordant dermatologist because of their perceived cultural competence and shared experience, there is a paucity of Black dermatologists to see all patients who have tightly coiled hair.4 Therefore, all dermatologists should become skilled and comfortable discussing and treating TA in patients with all hair types.
METHOD FOR COUNSELING
The following scenarios are a guide to begin closing the competency gap in counseling about TA, using a "compliment, discuss, and suggest" method.
Scenario 1 A Black woman presents with a concern of "thinning edges" (a popular term on social media for TA). A hair-discordant dermatologist tells her, first, that she has TA caused by wearing tight hairstyles and, second, that the treatment is to stop wearing tight braids and weaves and to discontinue chemical relaxers. The dermatologist then leaves the room.
The Patient's Perspective It is not uncommon for the patient to have feelings of frustration about how they will style their hair, especially if they are unfamiliar with caring for their hair in its natural state.5 Also, they might have feelings of dismay that the loving childhood hair care giver, often their mother or grandmother, unintentionally harmed them with a tight style. They also might feel betrayed by their hairstylist, who might not have encouraged them to see a dermatologist, or who continued to oblige their request for a high-risk hairstyle. The patient might feel uncomfortable communicating the dermatologist's new recommendations to their hair care team, who also are part of her emotional support system. The patient also might think that the hair-discordant dermatologist has no idea what they "go through" with their hair.
"Compliment, Discuss, and Suggest" Counseling Traction alopecia is caused by tight hairstyles that often hurt when they are put in as tight braids, weaves, and ponytails.6 Risk increases if tight styles are applied to chemically straightened hair.1 Braids, sew-in weaves, and wigs with adhesive sometimes are referred to as protective styles. However, these styles can still lead to TA due to excessive tension.
Compliment: "Your hair looks great. I know that you get many compliments."
Discuss: "However, some of the styles might be increasing your risk for hair loss. Our goal is to preserve as many of your follicles as possible."
Suggest: "Let's start by loosening the hairstyle if it is painful when being applied. Pain means inflammation, which can lead to scarring of hair follicles and worsening of hair loss."
Using pronouns such as we, us, and our is intentional. Doing so signals that the dermatologist is a partner with the patient in the treatment of TA. Starting with a simple initial recommendation gives the patient time to process the common thoughts highlighted in The Patient's Perspective section.6
Scenario 2 A Black child (we'll call her "Janet") is accompanied by her mother for follow-up of mild atopic dermatitis on the body and scalp. When the dermatologist examines the patient's scalp, they note that she has the fringe sign--retained short hairs along the frontal hairline--that is consistent with TA. Janet's hair is adorned with 2 tight ponytails in the front with colorful decorative balls on ponytail ties, barrettes, and 6 cornrow braids in the back with plastic beads on the ends. The dermatologist counsels about the atopic dermatitis and leaves the room.
"Compliment, Discuss, and Suggest" Counseling The use of tight decorative balls on ponytail ties and numerous plastic beads increases the amount of tension and weight on the hair, which may lead to a higher risk for developing traction alopecia.6 It is quite common for children of African descent to wear hair adornments. Proper counseling regarding their use and possible implications is essential.
Compliment: "You're doing a great job controlling the atopic dermatitis, which can cause Janet's scalp to be dry. Also, her hair is beautiful--it looks like you spent a lot of time on her hair. And Janet, I like the color of your barrettes."
Discuss: "Mom, I just noticed that a few areas look tight. Let's look together." (The dermatologist points out areas where the scalp is tented upward due to traction, follicular pustules or papules, or the frontal fringe sign.) "I'm on a mission to #savetheedges because we want Janet to grow up with full edges." (Again, loss of "edges" refers to TA.)
Suggest: "When you do Janet's hair, it's OK if every hair is not in place. In fact, making styles look and feel 1 or 2 weeks old will lessen tension on the scalp. Remove Janet's hair ties to release tension when she is at home and while she's sleeping, if possible. Every minute that the hair is loose really does help."6
The Parent's Perspective
All parents take pride in their children. In some Black communities, mothers are judged by how well they manage and style their children's hair. Some people might even suggest that parents of children with nonstyled, tightly coiled hair are not fit parents. Anthropologist Sylvia Boone, PhD, found that among the Mende tribe in Sierra Leone, "unkempt, 'neglected,' or 'messy' hair implied that a woman either had loose morals or was insane."7
Braids are commonly worn by people of African heritage for a variety of reasons, including ease of manageability, to decrease daily hairstyling time, and as an expression of creativity. Intricate neat hairstyles, despite the risk of pain and TA, are perceived as a sign that the child is cared for and loved.6
FINAL THOUGHTS
Patient-centered communication is associated with the patient trusting the physician, which is especially important in race-discordant physician-patient relationships. A study found that patient-physician race discordance led to shorter visits, a lower rating of patient affect, and less shared decision-making.8 Moreover, in a study of primary care clinicians, implicit bias was found to affect communication patterns and social interactions, impacting patient outcomes. Downstream effects of racial bias resulted in less speaking, smiling, and social comments when interacting with Black patients.9
These findings highlight the need to address interpersonal barriers to effective communication in race-discordant patient-physician dyads. A history of segregated neighborhoods and schools might contribute to structural barriers, resulting in lack of familiarity with cultural norms outside one's culture, which might globally perpetuate poor communication and patient outcomes.
The "compliment, discuss, and suggest" method might lead to more positive physician-patient encounters by having the dermatologist focus on empathetically understanding the patient's perspective.10 Effective communication, understanding cultural hair care practices, and a thorough scalp examination are paramount for patients with tightly coiled hair.11 Early intervention in TA is crucial and involves partnering with patients and parents to amend high-risk hairstyling routines with cultural humility.
Dr. Grayson is from the Florida State University College of Medicine Internal Medicine Residency Program, Tallahassee. Dr. Heath is from the Department of Dermatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Correspondence: Candrice R. Heath, MD, 3401 N Broad St, 5OB, Philadelphia, PA 19140 ([email protected]).
Dr. Grayson is from the Florida State University College of Medicine Internal Medicine Residency Program, Tallahassee. Dr. Heath is from the Department of Dermatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Correspondence: Candrice R. Heath, MD, 3401 N Broad St, 5OB, Philadelphia, PA 19140 ([email protected]).
Author and Disclosure Information
Dr. Grayson is from the Florida State University College of Medicine Internal Medicine Residency Program, Tallahassee. Dr. Heath is from the Department of Dermatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Correspondence: Candrice R. Heath, MD, 3401 N Broad St, 5OB, Philadelphia, PA 19140 ([email protected]).
Traction alopecia (TA)--one of the most common types of hair loss in Black women (although not exclusive to Black women)--is reversible when early corrective measures are taken; if chronic tension continues, however, permanent scarring alopecia ensues. Dermatologists can prevent worsening of this distressing hair loss. Due to a dearth of training among dermatologists in conditions occurring in patients with tightly coiled hair, it is imperative to add practical methods to the body of dermatology literature, with the goal of enhancing cultural humility.
Hairstyling among Black women often is a lengthy process and often results in relationship bonding with the hair care giver, in turn imparting hair care traditions to the next generation. Therefore, a well-received discussion about TA prevention not only has an impact on the patient but potentially on a multigenerational family of women and friends. We present a memory aid for discussing TA, with a focus on cultural humility and patient-centered communication.
Factors contributing to the risk of TA are hairstyles and hair care practices commonly used in Black individuals, including braids, locs, weaves, wigs, and chemical straightening.1 These styles often are worn to increase hair manageability or as a creative expression of beauty.
Discussing TA can be distressing for physicians and patients, especially in the setting of hair texture discordance. In a study that surveyed Black patients' perception of their dermatologic care both in and outside of a skin of color clinic, 71% of respondents (12/17) said that they prefer a race-concordant dermatologist. Some respondents reported that non-skin of color clinic dermatologists examined their hair with the end of a pencil or not at all; patients interpreted these interactions as disrespectful and racially insensitive.2 Another study found that only 30.2% (19/63) of dermatology chief residents and 12.2% (5/41) of program directors reported a specific rotation during which residents gained experience treating skin of color patients.3
Due to a paucity of training in diagnosing and treating patients with tightly coiled hair who experience hair loss, some physicians might feel uncomfortable caring for patients who have tightly coiled hair. Although many Black patients prefer to see a race-concordant dermatologist because of their perceived cultural competence and shared experience, there is a paucity of Black dermatologists to see all patients who have tightly coiled hair.4 Therefore, all dermatologists should become skilled and comfortable discussing and treating TA in patients with all hair types.
METHOD FOR COUNSELING
The following scenarios are a guide to begin closing the competency gap in counseling about TA, using a "compliment, discuss, and suggest" method.
Scenario 1 A Black woman presents with a concern of "thinning edges" (a popular term on social media for TA). A hair-discordant dermatologist tells her, first, that she has TA caused by wearing tight hairstyles and, second, that the treatment is to stop wearing tight braids and weaves and to discontinue chemical relaxers. The dermatologist then leaves the room.
The Patient's Perspective It is not uncommon for the patient to have feelings of frustration about how they will style their hair, especially if they are unfamiliar with caring for their hair in its natural state.5 Also, they might have feelings of dismay that the loving childhood hair care giver, often their mother or grandmother, unintentionally harmed them with a tight style. They also might feel betrayed by their hairstylist, who might not have encouraged them to see a dermatologist, or who continued to oblige their request for a high-risk hairstyle. The patient might feel uncomfortable communicating the dermatologist's new recommendations to their hair care team, who also are part of her emotional support system. The patient also might think that the hair-discordant dermatologist has no idea what they "go through" with their hair.
"Compliment, Discuss, and Suggest" Counseling Traction alopecia is caused by tight hairstyles that often hurt when they are put in as tight braids, weaves, and ponytails.6 Risk increases if tight styles are applied to chemically straightened hair.1 Braids, sew-in weaves, and wigs with adhesive sometimes are referred to as protective styles. However, these styles can still lead to TA due to excessive tension.
Compliment: "Your hair looks great. I know that you get many compliments."
Discuss: "However, some of the styles might be increasing your risk for hair loss. Our goal is to preserve as many of your follicles as possible."
Suggest: "Let's start by loosening the hairstyle if it is painful when being applied. Pain means inflammation, which can lead to scarring of hair follicles and worsening of hair loss."
Using pronouns such as we, us, and our is intentional. Doing so signals that the dermatologist is a partner with the patient in the treatment of TA. Starting with a simple initial recommendation gives the patient time to process the common thoughts highlighted in The Patient's Perspective section.6
Scenario 2 A Black child (we'll call her "Janet") is accompanied by her mother for follow-up of mild atopic dermatitis on the body and scalp. When the dermatologist examines the patient's scalp, they note that she has the fringe sign--retained short hairs along the frontal hairline--that is consistent with TA. Janet's hair is adorned with 2 tight ponytails in the front with colorful decorative balls on ponytail ties, barrettes, and 6 cornrow braids in the back with plastic beads on the ends. The dermatologist counsels about the atopic dermatitis and leaves the room.
"Compliment, Discuss, and Suggest" Counseling The use of tight decorative balls on ponytail ties and numerous plastic beads increases the amount of tension and weight on the hair, which may lead to a higher risk for developing traction alopecia.6 It is quite common for children of African descent to wear hair adornments. Proper counseling regarding their use and possible implications is essential.
Compliment: "You're doing a great job controlling the atopic dermatitis, which can cause Janet's scalp to be dry. Also, her hair is beautiful--it looks like you spent a lot of time on her hair. And Janet, I like the color of your barrettes."
Discuss: "Mom, I just noticed that a few areas look tight. Let's look together." (The dermatologist points out areas where the scalp is tented upward due to traction, follicular pustules or papules, or the frontal fringe sign.) "I'm on a mission to #savetheedges because we want Janet to grow up with full edges." (Again, loss of "edges" refers to TA.)
Suggest: "When you do Janet's hair, it's OK if every hair is not in place. In fact, making styles look and feel 1 or 2 weeks old will lessen tension on the scalp. Remove Janet's hair ties to release tension when she is at home and while she's sleeping, if possible. Every minute that the hair is loose really does help."6
The Parent's Perspective
All parents take pride in their children. In some Black communities, mothers are judged by how well they manage and style their children's hair. Some people might even suggest that parents of children with nonstyled, tightly coiled hair are not fit parents. Anthropologist Sylvia Boone, PhD, found that among the Mende tribe in Sierra Leone, "unkempt, 'neglected,' or 'messy' hair implied that a woman either had loose morals or was insane."7
Braids are commonly worn by people of African heritage for a variety of reasons, including ease of manageability, to decrease daily hairstyling time, and as an expression of creativity. Intricate neat hairstyles, despite the risk of pain and TA, are perceived as a sign that the child is cared for and loved.6
FINAL THOUGHTS
Patient-centered communication is associated with the patient trusting the physician, which is especially important in race-discordant physician-patient relationships. A study found that patient-physician race discordance led to shorter visits, a lower rating of patient affect, and less shared decision-making.8 Moreover, in a study of primary care clinicians, implicit bias was found to affect communication patterns and social interactions, impacting patient outcomes. Downstream effects of racial bias resulted in less speaking, smiling, and social comments when interacting with Black patients.9
These findings highlight the need to address interpersonal barriers to effective communication in race-discordant patient-physician dyads. A history of segregated neighborhoods and schools might contribute to structural barriers, resulting in lack of familiarity with cultural norms outside one's culture, which might globally perpetuate poor communication and patient outcomes.
The "compliment, discuss, and suggest" method might lead to more positive physician-patient encounters by having the dermatologist focus on empathetically understanding the patient's perspective.10 Effective communication, understanding cultural hair care practices, and a thorough scalp examination are paramount for patients with tightly coiled hair.11 Early intervention in TA is crucial and involves partnering with patients and parents to amend high-risk hairstyling routines with cultural humility.
Traction alopecia (TA)--one of the most common types of hair loss in Black women (although not exclusive to Black women)--is reversible when early corrective measures are taken; if chronic tension continues, however, permanent scarring alopecia ensues. Dermatologists can prevent worsening of this distressing hair loss. Due to a dearth of training among dermatologists in conditions occurring in patients with tightly coiled hair, it is imperative to add practical methods to the body of dermatology literature, with the goal of enhancing cultural humility.
Hairstyling among Black women often is a lengthy process and often results in relationship bonding with the hair care giver, in turn imparting hair care traditions to the next generation. Therefore, a well-received discussion about TA prevention not only has an impact on the patient but potentially on a multigenerational family of women and friends. We present a memory aid for discussing TA, with a focus on cultural humility and patient-centered communication.
Factors contributing to the risk of TA are hairstyles and hair care practices commonly used in Black individuals, including braids, locs, weaves, wigs, and chemical straightening.1 These styles often are worn to increase hair manageability or as a creative expression of beauty.
Discussing TA can be distressing for physicians and patients, especially in the setting of hair texture discordance. In a study that surveyed Black patients' perception of their dermatologic care both in and outside of a skin of color clinic, 71% of respondents (12/17) said that they prefer a race-concordant dermatologist. Some respondents reported that non-skin of color clinic dermatologists examined their hair with the end of a pencil or not at all; patients interpreted these interactions as disrespectful and racially insensitive.2 Another study found that only 30.2% (19/63) of dermatology chief residents and 12.2% (5/41) of program directors reported a specific rotation during which residents gained experience treating skin of color patients.3
Due to a paucity of training in diagnosing and treating patients with tightly coiled hair who experience hair loss, some physicians might feel uncomfortable caring for patients who have tightly coiled hair. Although many Black patients prefer to see a race-concordant dermatologist because of their perceived cultural competence and shared experience, there is a paucity of Black dermatologists to see all patients who have tightly coiled hair.4 Therefore, all dermatologists should become skilled and comfortable discussing and treating TA in patients with all hair types.
METHOD FOR COUNSELING
The following scenarios are a guide to begin closing the competency gap in counseling about TA, using a "compliment, discuss, and suggest" method.
Scenario 1 A Black woman presents with a concern of "thinning edges" (a popular term on social media for TA). A hair-discordant dermatologist tells her, first, that she has TA caused by wearing tight hairstyles and, second, that the treatment is to stop wearing tight braids and weaves and to discontinue chemical relaxers. The dermatologist then leaves the room.
The Patient's Perspective It is not uncommon for the patient to have feelings of frustration about how they will style their hair, especially if they are unfamiliar with caring for their hair in its natural state.5 Also, they might have feelings of dismay that the loving childhood hair care giver, often their mother or grandmother, unintentionally harmed them with a tight style. They also might feel betrayed by their hairstylist, who might not have encouraged them to see a dermatologist, or who continued to oblige their request for a high-risk hairstyle. The patient might feel uncomfortable communicating the dermatologist's new recommendations to their hair care team, who also are part of her emotional support system. The patient also might think that the hair-discordant dermatologist has no idea what they "go through" with their hair.
"Compliment, Discuss, and Suggest" Counseling Traction alopecia is caused by tight hairstyles that often hurt when they are put in as tight braids, weaves, and ponytails.6 Risk increases if tight styles are applied to chemically straightened hair.1 Braids, sew-in weaves, and wigs with adhesive sometimes are referred to as protective styles. However, these styles can still lead to TA due to excessive tension.
Compliment: "Your hair looks great. I know that you get many compliments."
Discuss: "However, some of the styles might be increasing your risk for hair loss. Our goal is to preserve as many of your follicles as possible."
Suggest: "Let's start by loosening the hairstyle if it is painful when being applied. Pain means inflammation, which can lead to scarring of hair follicles and worsening of hair loss."
Using pronouns such as we, us, and our is intentional. Doing so signals that the dermatologist is a partner with the patient in the treatment of TA. Starting with a simple initial recommendation gives the patient time to process the common thoughts highlighted in The Patient's Perspective section.6
Scenario 2 A Black child (we'll call her "Janet") is accompanied by her mother for follow-up of mild atopic dermatitis on the body and scalp. When the dermatologist examines the patient's scalp, they note that she has the fringe sign--retained short hairs along the frontal hairline--that is consistent with TA. Janet's hair is adorned with 2 tight ponytails in the front with colorful decorative balls on ponytail ties, barrettes, and 6 cornrow braids in the back with plastic beads on the ends. The dermatologist counsels about the atopic dermatitis and leaves the room.
"Compliment, Discuss, and Suggest" Counseling The use of tight decorative balls on ponytail ties and numerous plastic beads increases the amount of tension and weight on the hair, which may lead to a higher risk for developing traction alopecia.6 It is quite common for children of African descent to wear hair adornments. Proper counseling regarding their use and possible implications is essential.
Compliment: "You're doing a great job controlling the atopic dermatitis, which can cause Janet's scalp to be dry. Also, her hair is beautiful--it looks like you spent a lot of time on her hair. And Janet, I like the color of your barrettes."
Discuss: "Mom, I just noticed that a few areas look tight. Let's look together." (The dermatologist points out areas where the scalp is tented upward due to traction, follicular pustules or papules, or the frontal fringe sign.) "I'm on a mission to #savetheedges because we want Janet to grow up with full edges." (Again, loss of "edges" refers to TA.)
Suggest: "When you do Janet's hair, it's OK if every hair is not in place. In fact, making styles look and feel 1 or 2 weeks old will lessen tension on the scalp. Remove Janet's hair ties to release tension when she is at home and while she's sleeping, if possible. Every minute that the hair is loose really does help."6
The Parent's Perspective
All parents take pride in their children. In some Black communities, mothers are judged by how well they manage and style their children's hair. Some people might even suggest that parents of children with nonstyled, tightly coiled hair are not fit parents. Anthropologist Sylvia Boone, PhD, found that among the Mende tribe in Sierra Leone, "unkempt, 'neglected,' or 'messy' hair implied that a woman either had loose morals or was insane."7
Braids are commonly worn by people of African heritage for a variety of reasons, including ease of manageability, to decrease daily hairstyling time, and as an expression of creativity. Intricate neat hairstyles, despite the risk of pain and TA, are perceived as a sign that the child is cared for and loved.6
FINAL THOUGHTS
Patient-centered communication is associated with the patient trusting the physician, which is especially important in race-discordant physician-patient relationships. A study found that patient-physician race discordance led to shorter visits, a lower rating of patient affect, and less shared decision-making.8 Moreover, in a study of primary care clinicians, implicit bias was found to affect communication patterns and social interactions, impacting patient outcomes. Downstream effects of racial bias resulted in less speaking, smiling, and social comments when interacting with Black patients.9
These findings highlight the need to address interpersonal barriers to effective communication in race-discordant patient-physician dyads. A history of segregated neighborhoods and schools might contribute to structural barriers, resulting in lack of familiarity with cultural norms outside one's culture, which might globally perpetuate poor communication and patient outcomes.
The "compliment, discuss, and suggest" method might lead to more positive physician-patient encounters by having the dermatologist focus on empathetically understanding the patient's perspective.10 Effective communication, understanding cultural hair care practices, and a thorough scalp examination are paramount for patients with tightly coiled hair.11 Early intervention in TA is crucial and involves partnering with patients and parents to amend high-risk hairstyling routines with cultural humility.
A Elbow and forearm with erythematous, well-demarcated, pink plaques with mild micaceous scale in a 42-year-old White woman.
B Elbow and forearm with violaceous, well-demarcated plaques with micaceous scale and hyperpigmented patches around the active plaques in a 58-year-old Black man.
Epidemiology Psoriasis prevalence in the United States has been estimated at 3.7%.1-3 If broken down by race or ethnicity, the prevalence of psoriasis varies: 2.5% to 3.7% in White adults1-4; 1.3% to 2% in Black adults1-4; 1.6% in Hispanics/ other adults1-3; 1% in children overall; 0.29% in White children1,5; and 0.06% in Black children.1,5
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:
plaques that may appear more violaceous in color instead of pink or erythematous
higher body surface area of involvement4 and thicker, more scaly plaques6
increased likelihood of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).
Worth noting Although individuals of all skin tones may experience the psychosocial impact of psoriasis, quality-of-life measures have been found to be worse in those with skin of color (SOC) compared to White patients.1,4 This may be due to the lingering PIH and hypopigmentation that occurs even after inflammatory plaques are treated. Of course, lack of access to care contributes to greater disease burden and more devastating psychological impact.
Health disparity highlight Psoriasis may be underreported and underdiagnosed in individuals with SOC, as factors contributing to health care disparities may play a role, such as access to health care in general,1,7 and access to clinicians proficient in diagnosing cutaneous diseases in SOC may be delayed.8
Biologic medications are used less often in Black patients than in White patients, despite biologic medications being very efficacious for treatment of psoriasis.1,9,10
References
Kaufman BP, Alexis AF. Psoriasis in skin of color: insights into the epidemiology, clinical presentation, genetics, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in non-white racial/ethnic groups. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:405-423.
Rachakonda TD, Schupp CW, Armstrong AW. Psoriasis prevalence among adults in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:512-516.
Helmick CG, Lee-Han H, Hirsch SC, et al. Prevalence of psoriasis among adults in the U.S.: 2003-2006 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47:37-45.
Gelfand JM, Stern RS, Nijsten T, et al. The prevalence of psoriasis in African Americans: results from a population-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:23-26.
Wu JJ, Black MH, Smith N, et al. Low prevalence of psoriasis among children and adolescents in a large multiethnic cohort in southern California. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:957-964.
Davis SA, Narahari S, Feldman SR, et al. Top dermatologic conditions in patients of color: an analysis of nationally representative data. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11:466-473.
Alexis AF, Blackcloud P. Psoriasis in skin of color: epidemiology, genetics, clinical presentation, and treatment nuances. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2014;7:16-24.
Mundluru SN, Ramalingam ND, Tran HN. Addressing internal medicine residents’ discomfort with basic dermatology in persons of color in the primary care clinic. Am J Med Qual. 2019;34:513-513.
Kerr GS, Qaiyumi S, Richards J, et al. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in African-American patients—the need to measure disease burden. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:1753-1759.
Takeshita J, Gelfand JM, Li P, et al. Psoriasis in the US Medicare population: prevalence, treatment, and factors associated with biologic use. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:2955-2963.
A Elbow and forearm with erythematous, well-demarcated, pink plaques with mild micaceous scale in a 42-year-old White woman.
B Elbow and forearm with violaceous, well-demarcated plaques with micaceous scale and hyperpigmented patches around the active plaques in a 58-year-old Black man.
Epidemiology Psoriasis prevalence in the United States has been estimated at 3.7%.1-3 If broken down by race or ethnicity, the prevalence of psoriasis varies: 2.5% to 3.7% in White adults1-4; 1.3% to 2% in Black adults1-4; 1.6% in Hispanics/ other adults1-3; 1% in children overall; 0.29% in White children1,5; and 0.06% in Black children.1,5
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:
plaques that may appear more violaceous in color instead of pink or erythematous
higher body surface area of involvement4 and thicker, more scaly plaques6
increased likelihood of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).
Worth noting Although individuals of all skin tones may experience the psychosocial impact of psoriasis, quality-of-life measures have been found to be worse in those with skin of color (SOC) compared to White patients.1,4 This may be due to the lingering PIH and hypopigmentation that occurs even after inflammatory plaques are treated. Of course, lack of access to care contributes to greater disease burden and more devastating psychological impact.
Health disparity highlight Psoriasis may be underreported and underdiagnosed in individuals with SOC, as factors contributing to health care disparities may play a role, such as access to health care in general,1,7 and access to clinicians proficient in diagnosing cutaneous diseases in SOC may be delayed.8
Biologic medications are used less often in Black patients than in White patients, despite biologic medications being very efficacious for treatment of psoriasis.1,9,10
Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.
The Comparison
A Elbow and forearm with erythematous, well-demarcated, pink plaques with mild micaceous scale in a 42-year-old White woman.
B Elbow and forearm with violaceous, well-demarcated plaques with micaceous scale and hyperpigmented patches around the active plaques in a 58-year-old Black man.
Epidemiology Psoriasis prevalence in the United States has been estimated at 3.7%.1-3 If broken down by race or ethnicity, the prevalence of psoriasis varies: 2.5% to 3.7% in White adults1-4; 1.3% to 2% in Black adults1-4; 1.6% in Hispanics/ other adults1-3; 1% in children overall; 0.29% in White children1,5; and 0.06% in Black children.1,5
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:
plaques that may appear more violaceous in color instead of pink or erythematous
higher body surface area of involvement4 and thicker, more scaly plaques6
increased likelihood of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).
Worth noting Although individuals of all skin tones may experience the psychosocial impact of psoriasis, quality-of-life measures have been found to be worse in those with skin of color (SOC) compared to White patients.1,4 This may be due to the lingering PIH and hypopigmentation that occurs even after inflammatory plaques are treated. Of course, lack of access to care contributes to greater disease burden and more devastating psychological impact.
Health disparity highlight Psoriasis may be underreported and underdiagnosed in individuals with SOC, as factors contributing to health care disparities may play a role, such as access to health care in general,1,7 and access to clinicians proficient in diagnosing cutaneous diseases in SOC may be delayed.8
Biologic medications are used less often in Black patients than in White patients, despite biologic medications being very efficacious for treatment of psoriasis.1,9,10
References
Kaufman BP, Alexis AF. Psoriasis in skin of color: insights into the epidemiology, clinical presentation, genetics, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in non-white racial/ethnic groups. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:405-423.
Rachakonda TD, Schupp CW, Armstrong AW. Psoriasis prevalence among adults in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:512-516.
Helmick CG, Lee-Han H, Hirsch SC, et al. Prevalence of psoriasis among adults in the U.S.: 2003-2006 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47:37-45.
Gelfand JM, Stern RS, Nijsten T, et al. The prevalence of psoriasis in African Americans: results from a population-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:23-26.
Wu JJ, Black MH, Smith N, et al. Low prevalence of psoriasis among children and adolescents in a large multiethnic cohort in southern California. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:957-964.
Davis SA, Narahari S, Feldman SR, et al. Top dermatologic conditions in patients of color: an analysis of nationally representative data. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11:466-473.
Alexis AF, Blackcloud P. Psoriasis in skin of color: epidemiology, genetics, clinical presentation, and treatment nuances. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2014;7:16-24.
Mundluru SN, Ramalingam ND, Tran HN. Addressing internal medicine residents’ discomfort with basic dermatology in persons of color in the primary care clinic. Am J Med Qual. 2019;34:513-513.
Kerr GS, Qaiyumi S, Richards J, et al. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in African-American patients—the need to measure disease burden. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:1753-1759.
Takeshita J, Gelfand JM, Li P, et al. Psoriasis in the US Medicare population: prevalence, treatment, and factors associated with biologic use. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:2955-2963.
References
Kaufman BP, Alexis AF. Psoriasis in skin of color: insights into the epidemiology, clinical presentation, genetics, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in non-white racial/ethnic groups. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:405-423.
Rachakonda TD, Schupp CW, Armstrong AW. Psoriasis prevalence among adults in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:512-516.
Helmick CG, Lee-Han H, Hirsch SC, et al. Prevalence of psoriasis among adults in the U.S.: 2003-2006 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47:37-45.
Gelfand JM, Stern RS, Nijsten T, et al. The prevalence of psoriasis in African Americans: results from a population-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:23-26.
Wu JJ, Black MH, Smith N, et al. Low prevalence of psoriasis among children and adolescents in a large multiethnic cohort in southern California. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:957-964.
Davis SA, Narahari S, Feldman SR, et al. Top dermatologic conditions in patients of color: an analysis of nationally representative data. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11:466-473.
Alexis AF, Blackcloud P. Psoriasis in skin of color: epidemiology, genetics, clinical presentation, and treatment nuances. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2014;7:16-24.
Mundluru SN, Ramalingam ND, Tran HN. Addressing internal medicine residents’ discomfort with basic dermatology in persons of color in the primary care clinic. Am J Med Qual. 2019;34:513-513.
Kerr GS, Qaiyumi S, Richards J, et al. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in African-American patients—the need to measure disease burden. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:1753-1759.
Takeshita J, Gelfand JM, Li P, et al. Psoriasis in the US Medicare population: prevalence, treatment, and factors associated with biologic use. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:2955-2963.
