MDedge Dermatology

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has established core competencies to serve as a foundation for the training received in a dermatology residency program.¹ Although programs are required to have the same concentrations—patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice—no specific guidelines are in place regarding how each of these competencies should be reached within a training period.² Instead, it remains the responsibility of each program to formulate an individualized curriculum to facilitate proficiency in the multiple areas encompassed by a residency.

In many dermatology residency programs, dermatopathology is a substantial component of educational objectives and the curriculum.¹ Residents may spend as much as 25% of their training on dermatopathology. However, there is great variability among programs in methods of teaching dermatopathology. When Hinshaw³ surveyed 52 of 109 dermatology residency programs, they identified differences in dermatopathology teaching that included, but was not limited to, utilization of problem-based learning (in 40.4% of programs), integration of journal reviews (53.8%), and computer-based learning (19.2%). In addition, differences were identified in the recommended primary textbook and the makeup of faculty who taught dermatopathology.³

Although residency programs vary in their methods of teaching this important component of dermatology, most use a multiheaded microscope in some capacity for didactics or sign-out. For most trainees, the dermatopathology laboratory is a new environment compared to the clinical space that medical students and residents become accustomed to throughout their education, thus creating a knowledge gap for trainees on proper dermatopathology etiquette and universal guidelines.

With medical students, residents, and fellows in mind, we have prepared a basic “dermatopathology etiquette” reference for trainees. Just as there are universal rules in the operating room for surgery (eg, sterile technique), we want to establish a code of conduct at the microscope. We hope that these 10 tips will, first, be useful to those who are unsure how to approach their first experience with dermatopathology and, second, serve as a guideline to aid development of appropriate communication skills and functioning within this novel setting. This list also can serve as a resource for dermatopathology attendings to provide to rotating residents and students.

1. New to pathology? It’s okay to ask. Do not hesitate to ask upper-year residents, fellows, and attendings for instructions on such matters as how to adjust your eyepiece to get the best resolution. 

2. If a slide drops on the floor, do not move! Your first instinct might be to move your chair to look for the dropped slide, but you might roll over it and break it.

3. When the attending is looking through the scope, you look through the scope. Dermatopathology is a visual exercise. Getting in your “optic mileage” is best done under the guidance of an experienced dermatopathologist.

4. Rules regarding food and drink at the microscope vary by pathologist. It’s best to ask what each attending prefers. Safe advice is to avoid foods that make noise, such as chewing gum and chips, and food that has a strong odor, such as microwaved leftovers.

5. Limit use of a laptop, cell phone, and smartwatch. If you think that using any of these is necessary, it generally is best to announce that you are looking up something related to the case and then share your findings (but not the most recent post on your Facebook News Feed).

6. If you notice that something needs correcting on the report, speak up! We are all human; we all make typos. Do not hesitate to mention this as soon as possible, especially before the case is signed out. You will likely be thanked by your attending because it is harder to rectify once the report has been signed out.

7. Small talk often is welcome during large excisions. This is a great time to ask what others are doing next weekend or what happened in clinic earlier that day, or just to tell a good (clean) joke that is making the rounds. Conversely, if the case is complex, it often is best to wait until it is completed before asking questions.

8. When participating in a roundtable diagnosis, you are welcome to directly state the diagnosis for bread-and-butter cases, such as basal cell carcinomas and seborrheic keratoses. It is appropriate to be more descriptive and methodical in more complex cases. When evaluating a rash, give the general inflammatory pattern first. For example, is it spongiotic? Psoriasiform? Interface? Or a mixed pattern?

9. Extra points for identifying special sites! These include mucosal, genital, and acral sites. You might even get bonus points if you can determine something about the patient (child or adult) based on the pathologic features, such as variation in collagen patterns.

10. Whenever you are in doubt, just describe what you see. You can use the traditional top-down approach or start with stating the most evident finding, then proceed to a top-down description. If it is a neoplasm, describe the overall architecture; then, what you see at a cellular level will get you some points as well.

We acknowledge that this list of 10 tips is not comprehensive and might vary by attending and each institution’s distinctive training format. We are hopeful, however, that these 10 points of etiquette can serve as a guideline.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has established core competencies to serve as a foundation for the training received in a dermatology residency program.¹ Although programs are required to have the same concentrations—patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice—no specific guidelines are in place regarding how each of these competencies should be reached within a training period.² Instead, it remains the responsibility of each program to formulate an individualized curriculum to facilitate proficiency in the multiple areas encompassed by a residency.

In many dermatology residency programs, dermatopathology is a substantial component of educational objectives and the curriculum.¹ Residents may spend as much as 25% of their training on dermatopathology. However, there is great variability among programs in methods of teaching dermatopathology. When Hinshaw³ surveyed 52 of 109 dermatology residency programs, they identified differences in dermatopathology teaching that included, but was not limited to, utilization of problem-based learning (in 40.4% of programs), integration of journal reviews (53.8%), and computer-based learning (19.2%). In addition, differences were identified in the recommended primary textbook and the makeup of faculty who taught dermatopathology.³

Although residency programs vary in their methods of teaching this important component of dermatology, most use a multiheaded microscope in some capacity for didactics or sign-out. For most trainees, the dermatopathology laboratory is a new environment compared to the clinical space that medical students and residents become accustomed to throughout their education, thus creating a knowledge gap for trainees on proper dermatopathology etiquette and universal guidelines.

With medical students, residents, and fellows in mind, we have prepared a basic “dermatopathology etiquette” reference for trainees. Just as there are universal rules in the operating room for surgery (eg, sterile technique), we want to establish a code of conduct at the microscope. We hope that these 10 tips will, first, be useful to those who are unsure how to approach their first experience with dermatopathology and, second, serve as a guideline to aid development of appropriate communication skills and functioning within this novel setting. This list also can serve as a resource for dermatopathology attendings to provide to rotating residents and students.

1. New to pathology? It’s okay to ask. Do not hesitate to ask upper-year residents, fellows, and attendings for instructions on such matters as how to adjust your eyepiece to get the best resolution. 

2. If a slide drops on the floor, do not move! Your first instinct might be to move your chair to look for the dropped slide, but you might roll over it and break it.

3. When the attending is looking through the scope, you look through the scope. Dermatopathology is a visual exercise. Getting in your “optic mileage” is best done under the guidance of an experienced dermatopathologist.

4. Rules regarding food and drink at the microscope vary by pathologist. It’s best to ask what each attending prefers. Safe advice is to avoid foods that make noise, such as chewing gum and chips, and food that has a strong odor, such as microwaved leftovers.

5. Limit use of a laptop, cell phone, and smartwatch. If you think that using any of these is necessary, it generally is best to announce that you are looking up something related to the case and then share your findings (but not the most recent post on your Facebook News Feed).

6. If you notice that something needs correcting on the report, speak up! We are all human; we all make typos. Do not hesitate to mention this as soon as possible, especially before the case is signed out. You will likely be thanked by your attending because it is harder to rectify once the report has been signed out.

7. Small talk often is welcome during large excisions. This is a great time to ask what others are doing next weekend or what happened in clinic earlier that day, or just to tell a good (clean) joke that is making the rounds. Conversely, if the case is complex, it often is best to wait until it is completed before asking questions.

8. When participating in a roundtable diagnosis, you are welcome to directly state the diagnosis for bread-and-butter cases, such as basal cell carcinomas and seborrheic keratoses. It is appropriate to be more descriptive and methodical in more complex cases. When evaluating a rash, give the general inflammatory pattern first. For example, is it spongiotic? Psoriasiform? Interface? Or a mixed pattern?

9. Extra points for identifying special sites! These include mucosal, genital, and acral sites. You might even get bonus points if you can determine something about the patient (child or adult) based on the pathologic features, such as variation in collagen patterns.

10. Whenever you are in doubt, just describe what you see. You can use the traditional top-down approach or start with stating the most evident finding, then proceed to a top-down description. If it is a neoplasm, describe the overall architecture; then, what you see at a cellular level will get you some points as well.

We acknowledge that this list of 10 tips is not comprehensive and might vary by attending and each institution’s distinctive training format. We are hopeful, however, that these 10 points of etiquette can serve as a guideline.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has established core competencies to serve as a foundation for the training received in a dermatology residency program.¹ Although programs are required to have the same concentrations—patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice—no specific guidelines are in place regarding how each of these competencies should be reached within a training period.² Instead, it remains the responsibility of each program to formulate an individualized curriculum to facilitate proficiency in the multiple areas encompassed by a residency.

In many dermatology residency programs, dermatopathology is a substantial component of educational objectives and the curriculum.¹ Residents may spend as much as 25% of their training on dermatopathology. However, there is great variability among programs in methods of teaching dermatopathology. When Hinshaw³ surveyed 52 of 109 dermatology residency programs, they identified differences in dermatopathology teaching that included, but was not limited to, utilization of problem-based learning (in 40.4% of programs), integration of journal reviews (53.8%), and computer-based learning (19.2%). In addition, differences were identified in the recommended primary textbook and the makeup of faculty who taught dermatopathology.³

Although residency programs vary in their methods of teaching this important component of dermatology, most use a multiheaded microscope in some capacity for didactics or sign-out. For most trainees, the dermatopathology laboratory is a new environment compared to the clinical space that medical students and residents become accustomed to throughout their education, thus creating a knowledge gap for trainees on proper dermatopathology etiquette and universal guidelines.

With medical students, residents, and fellows in mind, we have prepared a basic “dermatopathology etiquette” reference for trainees. Just as there are universal rules in the operating room for surgery (eg, sterile technique), we want to establish a code of conduct at the microscope. We hope that these 10 tips will, first, be useful to those who are unsure how to approach their first experience with dermatopathology and, second, serve as a guideline to aid development of appropriate communication skills and functioning within this novel setting. This list also can serve as a resource for dermatopathology attendings to provide to rotating residents and students.

1. New to pathology? It’s okay to ask. Do not hesitate to ask upper-year residents, fellows, and attendings for instructions on such matters as how to adjust your eyepiece to get the best resolution. 

2. If a slide drops on the floor, do not move! Your first instinct might be to move your chair to look for the dropped slide, but you might roll over it and break it.

3. When the attending is looking through the scope, you look through the scope. Dermatopathology is a visual exercise. Getting in your “optic mileage” is best done under the guidance of an experienced dermatopathologist.

4. Rules regarding food and drink at the microscope vary by pathologist. It’s best to ask what each attending prefers. Safe advice is to avoid foods that make noise, such as chewing gum and chips, and food that has a strong odor, such as microwaved leftovers.

5. Limit use of a laptop, cell phone, and smartwatch. If you think that using any of these is necessary, it generally is best to announce that you are looking up something related to the case and then share your findings (but not the most recent post on your Facebook News Feed).

6. If you notice that something needs correcting on the report, speak up! We are all human; we all make typos. Do not hesitate to mention this as soon as possible, especially before the case is signed out. You will likely be thanked by your attending because it is harder to rectify once the report has been signed out.

7. Small talk often is welcome during large excisions. This is a great time to ask what others are doing next weekend or what happened in clinic earlier that day, or just to tell a good (clean) joke that is making the rounds. Conversely, if the case is complex, it often is best to wait until it is completed before asking questions.

8. When participating in a roundtable diagnosis, you are welcome to directly state the diagnosis for bread-and-butter cases, such as basal cell carcinomas and seborrheic keratoses. It is appropriate to be more descriptive and methodical in more complex cases. When evaluating a rash, give the general inflammatory pattern first. For example, is it spongiotic? Psoriasiform? Interface? Or a mixed pattern?

9. Extra points for identifying special sites! These include mucosal, genital, and acral sites. You might even get bonus points if you can determine something about the patient (child or adult) based on the pathologic features, such as variation in collagen patterns.

10. Whenever you are in doubt, just describe what you see. You can use the traditional top-down approach or start with stating the most evident finding, then proceed to a top-down description. If it is a neoplasm, describe the overall architecture; then, what you see at a cellular level will get you some points as well.

We acknowledge that this list of 10 tips is not comprehensive and might vary by attending and each institution’s distinctive training format. We are hopeful, however, that these 10 points of etiquette can serve as a guideline.

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

To the Editor:

Patients with psychocutaneous disorders present unique challenges to physicians. We illustrate the critical role that dermoscopy may play to illuminate exogenous skin pathology.

A 50-year-old woman with a reported medical history of systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic pain, and nonhealing leg ulcers presented to the emergency department with severe pain of the left lower leg and redness that was concerning for cellulitis. She sought treatment at an outside hospital for cellulitis 2 weeks prior but left against medical advice. Symptomatic review revealed chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The primary team started her on intravenous clindamycin and vancomycin for the presumed infection and scheduled narcotic medications due to concerns of intractable pain in the left leg. The dermatology department was consulted after failure to improve with 1 week of systemic antibiotics.

Physical examination revealed a geometric, atrophic, purple plaque on the left anterior shin from a prior leg ulcer as well as a diffuse red-pink patch extending from the knee to the ankle. Notably, the cellulitis spared the left posterior calf resting against the sheet and had a sharp line of demarcation at the distal shin. The leg was cool to the touch while the patient was distractible. She later reported that the leg was extremely tender to palpation. Dermoscopy revealed linear red pigments within skin furrows that accentuated skin lines (Figure). These findings raised suspicions of an external manipulation. The skin was wiped with an alcohol pad that removed a shimmering pink substance consistent in appearance to a cosmetic product. The skin beneath the cellulitis appeared normal.

Dermoscopy is not a standard method to diagnose cellulitis of the skin; however, when patients present with an atypical response to appropriate care, the presumed diagnosis must be challenged. This patient had dramatized symptoms, false medical history, and numerous hospitalizations that were suspicious for factitious disorder.¹ Furthermore, the physical examination was inconsistent with the classic course of cellulitis. In this case, dermoscopy had advantages over biopsies because it was noninvasive, gave immediate feedback, and provided a macroscopic view of the morphology. Via dermoscopy, we had an objective lens to distinguish cellulitis from cosmetic product and to obtain the correct diagnosis.

To the Editor:

Patients with psychocutaneous disorders present unique challenges to physicians. We illustrate the critical role that dermoscopy may play to illuminate exogenous skin pathology.

A 50-year-old woman with a reported medical history of systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic pain, and nonhealing leg ulcers presented to the emergency department with severe pain of the left lower leg and redness that was concerning for cellulitis. She sought treatment at an outside hospital for cellulitis 2 weeks prior but left against medical advice. Symptomatic review revealed chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The primary team started her on intravenous clindamycin and vancomycin for the presumed infection and scheduled narcotic medications due to concerns of intractable pain in the left leg. The dermatology department was consulted after failure to improve with 1 week of systemic antibiotics.

Physical examination revealed a geometric, atrophic, purple plaque on the left anterior shin from a prior leg ulcer as well as a diffuse red-pink patch extending from the knee to the ankle. Notably, the cellulitis spared the left posterior calf resting against the sheet and had a sharp line of demarcation at the distal shin. The leg was cool to the touch while the patient was distractible. She later reported that the leg was extremely tender to palpation. Dermoscopy revealed linear red pigments within skin furrows that accentuated skin lines (Figure). These findings raised suspicions of an external manipulation. The skin was wiped with an alcohol pad that removed a shimmering pink substance consistent in appearance to a cosmetic product. The skin beneath the cellulitis appeared normal.

Dermoscopy is not a standard method to diagnose cellulitis of the skin; however, when patients present with an atypical response to appropriate care, the presumed diagnosis must be challenged. This patient had dramatized symptoms, false medical history, and numerous hospitalizations that were suspicious for factitious disorder.¹ Furthermore, the physical examination was inconsistent with the classic course of cellulitis. In this case, dermoscopy had advantages over biopsies because it was noninvasive, gave immediate feedback, and provided a macroscopic view of the morphology. Via dermoscopy, we had an objective lens to distinguish cellulitis from cosmetic product and to obtain the correct diagnosis.

To the Editor:

Patients with psychocutaneous disorders present unique challenges to physicians. We illustrate the critical role that dermoscopy may play to illuminate exogenous skin pathology.

A 50-year-old woman with a reported medical history of systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic pain, and nonhealing leg ulcers presented to the emergency department with severe pain of the left lower leg and redness that was concerning for cellulitis. She sought treatment at an outside hospital for cellulitis 2 weeks prior but left against medical advice. Symptomatic review revealed chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The primary team started her on intravenous clindamycin and vancomycin for the presumed infection and scheduled narcotic medications due to concerns of intractable pain in the left leg. The dermatology department was consulted after failure to improve with 1 week of systemic antibiotics.

Physical examination revealed a geometric, atrophic, purple plaque on the left anterior shin from a prior leg ulcer as well as a diffuse red-pink patch extending from the knee to the ankle. Notably, the cellulitis spared the left posterior calf resting against the sheet and had a sharp line of demarcation at the distal shin. The leg was cool to the touch while the patient was distractible. She later reported that the leg was extremely tender to palpation. Dermoscopy revealed linear red pigments within skin furrows that accentuated skin lines (Figure). These findings raised suspicions of an external manipulation. The skin was wiped with an alcohol pad that removed a shimmering pink substance consistent in appearance to a cosmetic product. The skin beneath the cellulitis appeared normal.

Dermoscopy is not a standard method to diagnose cellulitis of the skin; however, when patients present with an atypical response to appropriate care, the presumed diagnosis must be challenged. This patient had dramatized symptoms, false medical history, and numerous hospitalizations that were suspicious for factitious disorder.¹ Furthermore, the physical examination was inconsistent with the classic course of cellulitis. In this case, dermoscopy had advantages over biopsies because it was noninvasive, gave immediate feedback, and provided a macroscopic view of the morphology. Via dermoscopy, we had an objective lens to distinguish cellulitis from cosmetic product and to obtain the correct diagnosis.

A neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong side of his patient’s spine claims he can’t be sued because of a federal law that protects health care professionals during a public health emergency, according to a report by KSDK, an NBC-affiliated television station in St. Louis.

Natalie Avilez, who lives in Missouri with her husband and five children, had been suffering from intense back pain. At some point in the recent past (the story doesn’t identify precisely when), she was referred to Fangxiang Chen, MD, a neurosurgeon affiliated with Mercy Hospital and Mercy Hospital South, in St. Louis. Ms. Avilez reportedly claims that Dr. Chen told her that an “easy” surgery – a hemilaminectomy – could relieve her back pain.

Something went wrong during the procedure, however. Dr. Chen ended up operating on the left side of Avilez’s spine instead of the right side, where he had initially diagnosed disk-related pressure. Dr. Chen realized his mistake while his patient was under anesthesia but couldn’t remedy it.

As the patient awakened, Dr. Chen asked her to authorize an immediate right-side surgery, but, as Ms. Avilez told the TV station, her “charge nurse would not let him get authorization because I wasn’t fully awake.” In the recovery room afterward, Dr. Chen explained what had happened to his patient, who permitted him to redo the surgery the following day.

But the redo didn’t remedy Ms. Avilez’s pain; in fact, the second surgery made things worse. “I’m always in constant pain,” she said. “I kind of feel like I would have been better off not even doing it at all.”

In January of this year, Ms. Avilez filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Chen and Mercy. But the neurosurgeon made a surprising claim: He said he couldn’t be sued for the wrong-site surgery because he was protected for any “alleged acts or omissions” under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Initially passed in 2005, PREP was intended to shield doctors and other licensed health care professionals from liability during a public health emergency except in cases of willful misconduct. On March 17, 2020, then–Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act “for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.”

But could this declaration – which has since been amended multiple times – shield a physician from a claim of wrong-site surgery?

Ms. Avilez’s attorney, Morgan Murphy, doesn’t think so. “Obviously, we are not claiming that COVID had anything to do with the fact that Dr. Chen operated on the incorrect side of Natalie’s spine. It is a fairly straightforward situation. A doctor should never perform the incorrect surgery, period.”

Other observers are less certain that the Chen defense won’t hold. It’s true the PREP Act doesn’t protect doctors against claims of willful or intentional misconduct, says Deidre Gilbert, who leads a national medical malpractice patient-advocacy group. But such claims are, she quickly adds, very difficult to prove, never more so than during a pandemic.

Several states, including Missouri, have passed or are considering additional measures to protect health care professionals against the expected wave of COVID-related claims. (One estimate places the number of those claims at almost 6,000 as of February 2021.) “We want to make sure that there is a heightened standard for holding somebody liable in ... COVID transmission cases,” said the sponsor of the proposed Show-Me State legislation.

As for Ms. Avilez, she feels lucky that she’s not even worse off than she is now. She worries, though, about other patients who are less fortunate and who are told that the pandemic protects their health care professionals from liability. “That’s just not fair,” she says.
 

Hidden beliefs about people of color raise liability risks

Clinicians’ “implicit bias” can exacerbate medical disparities and also malpractice claims, a story in the Dayton Daily News reports.

The story’s authors cite La Fleur Small, PhD, a medical sociologist at Wayne State University, in Detroit, who sees “implicit bias” as a set of “unconscious associations and judgments” that affect social behavior, causing people to act in ways that are often contrary to their perceived value system. In the medical profession, such thinking can have unintended consequences, especially for people of color.

Implicit bias can erode the physician-patient relationship, which in turn can make a malpractice suit more likely should an adverse event occur. Studies reported in recent years in the AMA Journal of Ethics, for instance, found that poor communication was a factor in almost three-quarters of closed claims. Other studies have revealed that, of patients seeking legal advice following a medical mishap, more than half cited a poor doctor-patient relationship as a contributing factor in their decision.

To remedy things, it would be helpful to boost the number of doctors of color, at least to the point that it more closely reflects the percentage in the general population, say experts. Currently, although Black and Hispanic persons constitute 13.4% and 18.5%, respectively, of the overall U.S. population, they make up only 5.0% and 5.8% of active physicians. (As of 2018, 56.2% of all physicians were White and 17.2% were Asian, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.)
 

Father of impaired baby seeks mega damages

An Oregon man whose son sustained permanent neurologic injuries during childbirth has sued the hospital where the 2017 delivery took place, as reported in The Astorian.

In the suit on behalf of his son, Wesley Humphries claims that Columbia Memorial Hospital in Astoria, Oregon, failed to monitor the baby’s heart rate and other aspects of the labor and delivery. As a consequence, the baby needed to be transferred to Oregon Health and Science University Hospital in Portland, approximately 100 miles away, for emergency treatment. Doctors there diagnosed the child as having hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which his lawyers say resulted in cerebral palsy, among other neurologic conditions.

Because of his son’s permanent impairment, Mr. Humphries is seeking significant damages: more than $45 million in medical, custodial, and life-care expenses and $65 million in noneconomic damages. Should his claim prove successful, the payout would mark one of the largest awards – if not the largest award – in Oregon State history. The hospital has declined to comment.

At press time, a trial date hadn’t been set.

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

A neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong side of his patient’s spine claims he can’t be sued because of a federal law that protects health care professionals during a public health emergency, according to a report by KSDK, an NBC-affiliated television station in St. Louis.

Natalie Avilez, who lives in Missouri with her husband and five children, had been suffering from intense back pain. At some point in the recent past (the story doesn’t identify precisely when), she was referred to Fangxiang Chen, MD, a neurosurgeon affiliated with Mercy Hospital and Mercy Hospital South, in St. Louis. Ms. Avilez reportedly claims that Dr. Chen told her that an “easy” surgery – a hemilaminectomy – could relieve her back pain.

Something went wrong during the procedure, however. Dr. Chen ended up operating on the left side of Avilez’s spine instead of the right side, where he had initially diagnosed disk-related pressure. Dr. Chen realized his mistake while his patient was under anesthesia but couldn’t remedy it.

As the patient awakened, Dr. Chen asked her to authorize an immediate right-side surgery, but, as Ms. Avilez told the TV station, her “charge nurse would not let him get authorization because I wasn’t fully awake.” In the recovery room afterward, Dr. Chen explained what had happened to his patient, who permitted him to redo the surgery the following day.

But the redo didn’t remedy Ms. Avilez’s pain; in fact, the second surgery made things worse. “I’m always in constant pain,” she said. “I kind of feel like I would have been better off not even doing it at all.”

In January of this year, Ms. Avilez filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Chen and Mercy. But the neurosurgeon made a surprising claim: He said he couldn’t be sued for the wrong-site surgery because he was protected for any “alleged acts or omissions” under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Initially passed in 2005, PREP was intended to shield doctors and other licensed health care professionals from liability during a public health emergency except in cases of willful misconduct. On March 17, 2020, then–Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act “for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.”

But could this declaration – which has since been amended multiple times – shield a physician from a claim of wrong-site surgery?

Ms. Avilez’s attorney, Morgan Murphy, doesn’t think so. “Obviously, we are not claiming that COVID had anything to do with the fact that Dr. Chen operated on the incorrect side of Natalie’s spine. It is a fairly straightforward situation. A doctor should never perform the incorrect surgery, period.”

Other observers are less certain that the Chen defense won’t hold. It’s true the PREP Act doesn’t protect doctors against claims of willful or intentional misconduct, says Deidre Gilbert, who leads a national medical malpractice patient-advocacy group. But such claims are, she quickly adds, very difficult to prove, never more so than during a pandemic.

Several states, including Missouri, have passed or are considering additional measures to protect health care professionals against the expected wave of COVID-related claims. (One estimate places the number of those claims at almost 6,000 as of February 2021.) “We want to make sure that there is a heightened standard for holding somebody liable in ... COVID transmission cases,” said the sponsor of the proposed Show-Me State legislation.

As for Ms. Avilez, she feels lucky that she’s not even worse off than she is now. She worries, though, about other patients who are less fortunate and who are told that the pandemic protects their health care professionals from liability. “That’s just not fair,” she says.
 

Hidden beliefs about people of color raise liability risks

Clinicians’ “implicit bias” can exacerbate medical disparities and also malpractice claims, a story in the Dayton Daily News reports.

The story’s authors cite La Fleur Small, PhD, a medical sociologist at Wayne State University, in Detroit, who sees “implicit bias” as a set of “unconscious associations and judgments” that affect social behavior, causing people to act in ways that are often contrary to their perceived value system. In the medical profession, such thinking can have unintended consequences, especially for people of color.

Implicit bias can erode the physician-patient relationship, which in turn can make a malpractice suit more likely should an adverse event occur. Studies reported in recent years in the AMA Journal of Ethics, for instance, found that poor communication was a factor in almost three-quarters of closed claims. Other studies have revealed that, of patients seeking legal advice following a medical mishap, more than half cited a poor doctor-patient relationship as a contributing factor in their decision.

To remedy things, it would be helpful to boost the number of doctors of color, at least to the point that it more closely reflects the percentage in the general population, say experts. Currently, although Black and Hispanic persons constitute 13.4% and 18.5%, respectively, of the overall U.S. population, they make up only 5.0% and 5.8% of active physicians. (As of 2018, 56.2% of all physicians were White and 17.2% were Asian, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.)
 

Father of impaired baby seeks mega damages

An Oregon man whose son sustained permanent neurologic injuries during childbirth has sued the hospital where the 2017 delivery took place, as reported in The Astorian.

In the suit on behalf of his son, Wesley Humphries claims that Columbia Memorial Hospital in Astoria, Oregon, failed to monitor the baby’s heart rate and other aspects of the labor and delivery. As a consequence, the baby needed to be transferred to Oregon Health and Science University Hospital in Portland, approximately 100 miles away, for emergency treatment. Doctors there diagnosed the child as having hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which his lawyers say resulted in cerebral palsy, among other neurologic conditions.

Because of his son’s permanent impairment, Mr. Humphries is seeking significant damages: more than $45 million in medical, custodial, and life-care expenses and $65 million in noneconomic damages. Should his claim prove successful, the payout would mark one of the largest awards – if not the largest award – in Oregon State history. The hospital has declined to comment.

At press time, a trial date hadn’t been set.

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

A neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong side of his patient’s spine claims he can’t be sued because of a federal law that protects health care professionals during a public health emergency, according to a report by KSDK, an NBC-affiliated television station in St. Louis.

Natalie Avilez, who lives in Missouri with her husband and five children, had been suffering from intense back pain. At some point in the recent past (the story doesn’t identify precisely when), she was referred to Fangxiang Chen, MD, a neurosurgeon affiliated with Mercy Hospital and Mercy Hospital South, in St. Louis. Ms. Avilez reportedly claims that Dr. Chen told her that an “easy” surgery – a hemilaminectomy – could relieve her back pain.

Something went wrong during the procedure, however. Dr. Chen ended up operating on the left side of Avilez’s spine instead of the right side, where he had initially diagnosed disk-related pressure. Dr. Chen realized his mistake while his patient was under anesthesia but couldn’t remedy it.

As the patient awakened, Dr. Chen asked her to authorize an immediate right-side surgery, but, as Ms. Avilez told the TV station, her “charge nurse would not let him get authorization because I wasn’t fully awake.” In the recovery room afterward, Dr. Chen explained what had happened to his patient, who permitted him to redo the surgery the following day.

But the redo didn’t remedy Ms. Avilez’s pain; in fact, the second surgery made things worse. “I’m always in constant pain,” she said. “I kind of feel like I would have been better off not even doing it at all.”

In January of this year, Ms. Avilez filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Chen and Mercy. But the neurosurgeon made a surprising claim: He said he couldn’t be sued for the wrong-site surgery because he was protected for any “alleged acts or omissions” under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Initially passed in 2005, PREP was intended to shield doctors and other licensed health care professionals from liability during a public health emergency except in cases of willful misconduct. On March 17, 2020, then–Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act “for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.”

But could this declaration – which has since been amended multiple times – shield a physician from a claim of wrong-site surgery?

Ms. Avilez’s attorney, Morgan Murphy, doesn’t think so. “Obviously, we are not claiming that COVID had anything to do with the fact that Dr. Chen operated on the incorrect side of Natalie’s spine. It is a fairly straightforward situation. A doctor should never perform the incorrect surgery, period.”

Other observers are less certain that the Chen defense won’t hold. It’s true the PREP Act doesn’t protect doctors against claims of willful or intentional misconduct, says Deidre Gilbert, who leads a national medical malpractice patient-advocacy group. But such claims are, she quickly adds, very difficult to prove, never more so than during a pandemic.

Several states, including Missouri, have passed or are considering additional measures to protect health care professionals against the expected wave of COVID-related claims. (One estimate places the number of those claims at almost 6,000 as of February 2021.) “We want to make sure that there is a heightened standard for holding somebody liable in ... COVID transmission cases,” said the sponsor of the proposed Show-Me State legislation.

As for Ms. Avilez, she feels lucky that she’s not even worse off than she is now. She worries, though, about other patients who are less fortunate and who are told that the pandemic protects their health care professionals from liability. “That’s just not fair,” she says.
 

Hidden beliefs about people of color raise liability risks

Clinicians’ “implicit bias” can exacerbate medical disparities and also malpractice claims, a story in the Dayton Daily News reports.

The story’s authors cite La Fleur Small, PhD, a medical sociologist at Wayne State University, in Detroit, who sees “implicit bias” as a set of “unconscious associations and judgments” that affect social behavior, causing people to act in ways that are often contrary to their perceived value system. In the medical profession, such thinking can have unintended consequences, especially for people of color.

Implicit bias can erode the physician-patient relationship, which in turn can make a malpractice suit more likely should an adverse event occur. Studies reported in recent years in the AMA Journal of Ethics, for instance, found that poor communication was a factor in almost three-quarters of closed claims. Other studies have revealed that, of patients seeking legal advice following a medical mishap, more than half cited a poor doctor-patient relationship as a contributing factor in their decision.

To remedy things, it would be helpful to boost the number of doctors of color, at least to the point that it more closely reflects the percentage in the general population, say experts. Currently, although Black and Hispanic persons constitute 13.4% and 18.5%, respectively, of the overall U.S. population, they make up only 5.0% and 5.8% of active physicians. (As of 2018, 56.2% of all physicians were White and 17.2% were Asian, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.)
 

Father of impaired baby seeks mega damages

An Oregon man whose son sustained permanent neurologic injuries during childbirth has sued the hospital where the 2017 delivery took place, as reported in The Astorian.

In the suit on behalf of his son, Wesley Humphries claims that Columbia Memorial Hospital in Astoria, Oregon, failed to monitor the baby’s heart rate and other aspects of the labor and delivery. As a consequence, the baby needed to be transferred to Oregon Health and Science University Hospital in Portland, approximately 100 miles away, for emergency treatment. Doctors there diagnosed the child as having hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which his lawyers say resulted in cerebral palsy, among other neurologic conditions.

Because of his son’s permanent impairment, Mr. Humphries is seeking significant damages: more than $45 million in medical, custodial, and life-care expenses and $65 million in noneconomic damages. Should his claim prove successful, the payout would mark one of the largest awards – if not the largest award – in Oregon State history. The hospital has declined to comment.

At press time, a trial date hadn’t been set.

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

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Baricitinib, at a dose of 2 mg a day, demonstrated efficacy in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis up to 52 weeks, integrated data from two trials demonstrated.

Bruce Jancin/MDEdge News

“With long-term therapy, the baricitinib 2 mg response remains stable or slightly improved, compared with week 16 for skin inflammation, itch, sleep, and quality of life,” presenting study author Eric L. Simpson, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. The drug is already approved for AD in Europe at the 2-mg and 4-mg doses. A 16-week placebo-controlled study conducted in North America known as BREEZE-AD5 found that 2 mg of baricitinib improved disease in adults with moderate to severe AD.

For the current analysis, Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and colleagues integrated data from BREEZE-AD5 and BREEZE-AD6, an ongoing, open-label study of BREEZE-AD5, to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg in patients with moderate to severe AD.

At week 16, patients from BREEZE-AD5 who were on baricitinib 2 mg could either continue the trial out to week 52, or they could transition to BREEZE-AD6 if they were nonresponders. The use of low-potency corticosteroids was permitted after week 16 in BREEZE-AD5 and throughout BREEZE-AD6. Endpoints of interest at week 52 in both trials were the proportions of patients with 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Eczema and Severity Index (EASI75), a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 or 1, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less, as well as mean SCORing AD (SCORAD) visual analog scales of itch and sleeplessness scores, and the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score.

Dr. Simpson presented data on 146 patients from both trials who were randomized to baricitinib 2 mg. Their mean age was 40 years, 53% were female, 58% were White, 21% were Black, 15% were Asian, and the remainder were from other backgrounds. Their mean duration of AD was 16 years and their average EASI score was 26.6. At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the proportion of patients who achieved an EASI75 response was 40%, 51%, and 49%, respectively, while the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score was –50%, –59%, and –57%.

At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the vIGA-AD responses of 0 or 1 were observed in 27%, 38%, and 31% of patients. The mean SCORAD pruritus score improved from 7.7 at baseline to 4.8 at week 16 and was maintained at weeks 32 (3.8) and 52 (4.3). The mean SCORAD sleeplessness score also improved from 6.5 at baseline to 3.9 at week 16 and remained stable through weeks 32 (3.4) and 52 (3.7).

Finally, among 129 patients who had a baseline DLQI of greater than 5, 39% had DLQI scores of 5 or lower at week 16, compared with 49% at week 32 and 45% at week 52, indicating a small or no effect of AD on quality of life.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which is developing baricitinib. Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

Baricitinib, at a dose of 2 mg a day, demonstrated efficacy in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis up to 52 weeks, integrated data from two trials demonstrated.

Bruce Jancin/MDEdge News

“With long-term therapy, the baricitinib 2 mg response remains stable or slightly improved, compared with week 16 for skin inflammation, itch, sleep, and quality of life,” presenting study author Eric L. Simpson, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. The drug is already approved for AD in Europe at the 2-mg and 4-mg doses. A 16-week placebo-controlled study conducted in North America known as BREEZE-AD5 found that 2 mg of baricitinib improved disease in adults with moderate to severe AD.

For the current analysis, Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and colleagues integrated data from BREEZE-AD5 and BREEZE-AD6, an ongoing, open-label study of BREEZE-AD5, to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg in patients with moderate to severe AD.

At week 16, patients from BREEZE-AD5 who were on baricitinib 2 mg could either continue the trial out to week 52, or they could transition to BREEZE-AD6 if they were nonresponders. The use of low-potency corticosteroids was permitted after week 16 in BREEZE-AD5 and throughout BREEZE-AD6. Endpoints of interest at week 52 in both trials were the proportions of patients with 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Eczema and Severity Index (EASI75), a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 or 1, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less, as well as mean SCORing AD (SCORAD) visual analog scales of itch and sleeplessness scores, and the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score.

Dr. Simpson presented data on 146 patients from both trials who were randomized to baricitinib 2 mg. Their mean age was 40 years, 53% were female, 58% were White, 21% were Black, 15% were Asian, and the remainder were from other backgrounds. Their mean duration of AD was 16 years and their average EASI score was 26.6. At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the proportion of patients who achieved an EASI75 response was 40%, 51%, and 49%, respectively, while the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score was –50%, –59%, and –57%.

At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the vIGA-AD responses of 0 or 1 were observed in 27%, 38%, and 31% of patients. The mean SCORAD pruritus score improved from 7.7 at baseline to 4.8 at week 16 and was maintained at weeks 32 (3.8) and 52 (4.3). The mean SCORAD sleeplessness score also improved from 6.5 at baseline to 3.9 at week 16 and remained stable through weeks 32 (3.4) and 52 (3.7).

Finally, among 129 patients who had a baseline DLQI of greater than 5, 39% had DLQI scores of 5 or lower at week 16, compared with 49% at week 32 and 45% at week 52, indicating a small or no effect of AD on quality of life.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which is developing baricitinib. Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

Baricitinib, at a dose of 2 mg a day, demonstrated efficacy in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis up to 52 weeks, integrated data from two trials demonstrated.

Bruce Jancin/MDEdge News

“With long-term therapy, the baricitinib 2 mg response remains stable or slightly improved, compared with week 16 for skin inflammation, itch, sleep, and quality of life,” presenting study author Eric L. Simpson, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. The drug is already approved for AD in Europe at the 2-mg and 4-mg doses. A 16-week placebo-controlled study conducted in North America known as BREEZE-AD5 found that 2 mg of baricitinib improved disease in adults with moderate to severe AD.

For the current analysis, Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and colleagues integrated data from BREEZE-AD5 and BREEZE-AD6, an ongoing, open-label study of BREEZE-AD5, to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg in patients with moderate to severe AD.

At week 16, patients from BREEZE-AD5 who were on baricitinib 2 mg could either continue the trial out to week 52, or they could transition to BREEZE-AD6 if they were nonresponders. The use of low-potency corticosteroids was permitted after week 16 in BREEZE-AD5 and throughout BREEZE-AD6. Endpoints of interest at week 52 in both trials were the proportions of patients with 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Eczema and Severity Index (EASI75), a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 or 1, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less, as well as mean SCORing AD (SCORAD) visual analog scales of itch and sleeplessness scores, and the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score.

Dr. Simpson presented data on 146 patients from both trials who were randomized to baricitinib 2 mg. Their mean age was 40 years, 53% were female, 58% were White, 21% were Black, 15% were Asian, and the remainder were from other backgrounds. Their mean duration of AD was 16 years and their average EASI score was 26.6. At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the proportion of patients who achieved an EASI75 response was 40%, 51%, and 49%, respectively, while the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score was –50%, –59%, and –57%.

At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the vIGA-AD responses of 0 or 1 were observed in 27%, 38%, and 31% of patients. The mean SCORAD pruritus score improved from 7.7 at baseline to 4.8 at week 16 and was maintained at weeks 32 (3.8) and 52 (4.3). The mean SCORAD sleeplessness score also improved from 6.5 at baseline to 3.9 at week 16 and remained stable through weeks 32 (3.4) and 52 (3.7).

Finally, among 129 patients who had a baseline DLQI of greater than 5, 39% had DLQI scores of 5 or lower at week 16, compared with 49% at week 32 and 45% at week 52, indicating a small or no effect of AD on quality of life.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which is developing baricitinib. Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

The European Commission (EC) has approved cemiplimab (Libtayo) for the treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) who progressed on – or could not tolerate – treatment with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI).

The programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, which is being jointly developed by Regeneron and Sanofi under a global collaboration agreement, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication in the United States in February; the FDA granted full approval for its use in patients with locally advanced BCC and accelerated approval for use in patients with metastatic BCC.

The EC’s thumbs-up for cemiplimab as a treatment for BCC marks the third such approval for an advanced cancer in the European Union: The immunotherapy was concurrently approved by the EC for the first-line treatment of adults with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumor cells have ≥ 50% PD-L1 expression and no EGFR, ALK or ROS1 aberrations, and was approved in 2019 for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation.

The FDA granted approval of cemiplimab for NSCLC in February, and for CSCC in 2018.

The latest BCC approval is based on data from an ongoing, open-label, prospective phase 2 clinical trial of 119 patients with advanced BCC who were previously treated with an HHI. The objective response rates in cemiplimab-treated patients were 32% (partial responses in 25%; complete responses in 7%) in those with locally advanced BCC, and 29% (partial responses in 26%; complete responses in 3%) in those with metastatic BCC.

About 90% of all patients had a duration of response (DOR) of 6 months or longer. Median DOR was not reached in either group at median follow-up of 16 months for locally advanced BCC and 9 months for metastatic BCC.

The safety profile of cemiplimab has been generally consistent across approved indications. Serious adverse events have been reported in 30% of 816 patients from all four cemiplimab monotherapy pivotal trials, and these led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 8% of patients.

Immune-related adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients, and led to permanent discontinuation in 4%. The most common such reactions were hypothyroidism (8%), hyperthyroidism (3%), pneumonitis (3%), hepatitis (2%), colitis (2%) and immune-related skin adverse reactions (2%).

Cemiplimab is administered by intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The recommended dose is 350 mg.

A press release from Regeneron notes that research efforts with respect to cemiplimab – both as monotherapy and in combination with other agents – are focused on difficult-to-treat cancers, including advanced NSCLC, cervical cancer, and other solid tumors and blood cancers.

The European Commission (EC) has approved cemiplimab (Libtayo) for the treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) who progressed on – or could not tolerate – treatment with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI).

The programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, which is being jointly developed by Regeneron and Sanofi under a global collaboration agreement, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication in the United States in February; the FDA granted full approval for its use in patients with locally advanced BCC and accelerated approval for use in patients with metastatic BCC.

The EC’s thumbs-up for cemiplimab as a treatment for BCC marks the third such approval for an advanced cancer in the European Union: The immunotherapy was concurrently approved by the EC for the first-line treatment of adults with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumor cells have ≥ 50% PD-L1 expression and no EGFR, ALK or ROS1 aberrations, and was approved in 2019 for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation.

The FDA granted approval of cemiplimab for NSCLC in February, and for CSCC in 2018.

The latest BCC approval is based on data from an ongoing, open-label, prospective phase 2 clinical trial of 119 patients with advanced BCC who were previously treated with an HHI. The objective response rates in cemiplimab-treated patients were 32% (partial responses in 25%; complete responses in 7%) in those with locally advanced BCC, and 29% (partial responses in 26%; complete responses in 3%) in those with metastatic BCC.

About 90% of all patients had a duration of response (DOR) of 6 months or longer. Median DOR was not reached in either group at median follow-up of 16 months for locally advanced BCC and 9 months for metastatic BCC.

The safety profile of cemiplimab has been generally consistent across approved indications. Serious adverse events have been reported in 30% of 816 patients from all four cemiplimab monotherapy pivotal trials, and these led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 8% of patients.

Immune-related adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients, and led to permanent discontinuation in 4%. The most common such reactions were hypothyroidism (8%), hyperthyroidism (3%), pneumonitis (3%), hepatitis (2%), colitis (2%) and immune-related skin adverse reactions (2%).

Cemiplimab is administered by intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The recommended dose is 350 mg.

A press release from Regeneron notes that research efforts with respect to cemiplimab – both as monotherapy and in combination with other agents – are focused on difficult-to-treat cancers, including advanced NSCLC, cervical cancer, and other solid tumors and blood cancers.

The European Commission (EC) has approved cemiplimab (Libtayo) for the treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) who progressed on – or could not tolerate – treatment with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI).

The programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, which is being jointly developed by Regeneron and Sanofi under a global collaboration agreement, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication in the United States in February; the FDA granted full approval for its use in patients with locally advanced BCC and accelerated approval for use in patients with metastatic BCC.

The EC’s thumbs-up for cemiplimab as a treatment for BCC marks the third such approval for an advanced cancer in the European Union: The immunotherapy was concurrently approved by the EC for the first-line treatment of adults with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumor cells have ≥ 50% PD-L1 expression and no EGFR, ALK or ROS1 aberrations, and was approved in 2019 for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation.

The FDA granted approval of cemiplimab for NSCLC in February, and for CSCC in 2018.

The latest BCC approval is based on data from an ongoing, open-label, prospective phase 2 clinical trial of 119 patients with advanced BCC who were previously treated with an HHI. The objective response rates in cemiplimab-treated patients were 32% (partial responses in 25%; complete responses in 7%) in those with locally advanced BCC, and 29% (partial responses in 26%; complete responses in 3%) in those with metastatic BCC.

About 90% of all patients had a duration of response (DOR) of 6 months or longer. Median DOR was not reached in either group at median follow-up of 16 months for locally advanced BCC and 9 months for metastatic BCC.

The safety profile of cemiplimab has been generally consistent across approved indications. Serious adverse events have been reported in 30% of 816 patients from all four cemiplimab monotherapy pivotal trials, and these led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 8% of patients.

Immune-related adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients, and led to permanent discontinuation in 4%. The most common such reactions were hypothyroidism (8%), hyperthyroidism (3%), pneumonitis (3%), hepatitis (2%), colitis (2%) and immune-related skin adverse reactions (2%).

Cemiplimab is administered by intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The recommended dose is 350 mg.

A press release from Regeneron notes that research efforts with respect to cemiplimab – both as monotherapy and in combination with other agents – are focused on difficult-to-treat cancers, including advanced NSCLC, cervical cancer, and other solid tumors and blood cancers.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

Treating the needs of patients of color requires an understanding of differences that may not be readily apparent, a dermatologist told colleagues. For example, clinicians generally understand what White patients are talking about when they mention acne scarring, but Black patients have a different perception of the term that may be misinterpreted in the doctor’s office.

“Scarring is not usually what they’re talking about, although they may have some of that as well. They’re [typically] talking about what we know as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, not scarring. So right away, you have to clarify,” Amy McMichael, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in a presentation at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease. “When you’re talking about scarring, do you mean the dark spots? What exactly are you concerned about?”

Dr. McMichael highlighted a 2014 study that reported the results of a survey of 208 women (51% were White; 49% were non-White), which included 51 Black, 23 Hispanic, and 16 Asian women aged 25-45 (mean age, 35) with 25 or more lesions. White women were more troubled by facial acne than were women of color (89% vs. 76%, respectively, P < .05), and they were more likely to say lesion clearance was most important to them (58% vs. 32%, respectively, P < .001).

Meanwhile, non-White women were much more likely than were White women to say that clearance of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was most important to them (42% vs. 8%, respectively, P < .0001).

“Seventy percent of [non-White women] felt that their race and ethnicity required targeted attention [in treatment], and two-thirds desired acne treatment that was designed to meet the needs of their skin type,” Dr. McMichael said. “If you don’t address the issues, if you don’t talk about the pigmentation with them or explain how you’re going to address it, people don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like they’ve really seen a dermatologist who understands their needs.”

She added that it’s crucial to ask about over-the-counter products. “If you don’t discuss them, they’ll assume that what they’re doing is okay.” She warns her patients against using and exposing their skin and face to cocoa butter and oils such as tea tree oil.

Research has suggested that among people of color, Blacks and Hispanics are most likely to experience dyspigmentation and scarring, Dr. McMichael said. She advised colleagues to be aware of pomade acne in these two groups of patients. Pomade acne appears along the hair line and is caused by the use of hair products. She also cautioned about acne cosmetica, which can be triggered by products such as makeup, used to cover up acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

As for acne treatments, Dr. McMichael highlighted a long list of familiar topical and oral agents and procedural options. Less familiar strategies include laser and light-based therapies, she said.

As for up-and-coming options, she pointed to topical minocycline, “which allows us to use an anti-inflammatory agent topically rather than orally when we’re trying to get away from using a lot of oral antibiotics.”

Also consider whether female patients have polycystic ovary syndrome, she said. “Then you might consider spironolactone. I certainly use a lot more of that these days to try to avoid long-term oral antibiotics.”

She recommended earlier use of isotretinoin in patients overall, and she urged colleagues to proceed with their standard retinoid approaches. However, she noted that she lets patients know that she’ll focus first on treating the acne itself and then work on the dark spots in later treatments. “If you give people a bleaching agent in the beginning, they’re going to stop using their main products, and they’re going to chase those dark spots. That’s just something that they can’t help doing.”

Dr. McMichael disclosed investigator and consultant relationships with multiple drug makers.

Treating the needs of patients of color requires an understanding of differences that may not be readily apparent, a dermatologist told colleagues. For example, clinicians generally understand what White patients are talking about when they mention acne scarring, but Black patients have a different perception of the term that may be misinterpreted in the doctor’s office.

“Scarring is not usually what they’re talking about, although they may have some of that as well. They’re [typically] talking about what we know as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, not scarring. So right away, you have to clarify,” Amy McMichael, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in a presentation at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease. “When you’re talking about scarring, do you mean the dark spots? What exactly are you concerned about?”

Dr. McMichael highlighted a 2014 study that reported the results of a survey of 208 women (51% were White; 49% were non-White), which included 51 Black, 23 Hispanic, and 16 Asian women aged 25-45 (mean age, 35) with 25 or more lesions. White women were more troubled by facial acne than were women of color (89% vs. 76%, respectively, P < .05), and they were more likely to say lesion clearance was most important to them (58% vs. 32%, respectively, P < .001).

Meanwhile, non-White women were much more likely than were White women to say that clearance of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was most important to them (42% vs. 8%, respectively, P < .0001).

“Seventy percent of [non-White women] felt that their race and ethnicity required targeted attention [in treatment], and two-thirds desired acne treatment that was designed to meet the needs of their skin type,” Dr. McMichael said. “If you don’t address the issues, if you don’t talk about the pigmentation with them or explain how you’re going to address it, people don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like they’ve really seen a dermatologist who understands their needs.”

She added that it’s crucial to ask about over-the-counter products. “If you don’t discuss them, they’ll assume that what they’re doing is okay.” She warns her patients against using and exposing their skin and face to cocoa butter and oils such as tea tree oil.

Research has suggested that among people of color, Blacks and Hispanics are most likely to experience dyspigmentation and scarring, Dr. McMichael said. She advised colleagues to be aware of pomade acne in these two groups of patients. Pomade acne appears along the hair line and is caused by the use of hair products. She also cautioned about acne cosmetica, which can be triggered by products such as makeup, used to cover up acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

As for acne treatments, Dr. McMichael highlighted a long list of familiar topical and oral agents and procedural options. Less familiar strategies include laser and light-based therapies, she said.

As for up-and-coming options, she pointed to topical minocycline, “which allows us to use an anti-inflammatory agent topically rather than orally when we’re trying to get away from using a lot of oral antibiotics.”

Also consider whether female patients have polycystic ovary syndrome, she said. “Then you might consider spironolactone. I certainly use a lot more of that these days to try to avoid long-term oral antibiotics.”

She recommended earlier use of isotretinoin in patients overall, and she urged colleagues to proceed with their standard retinoid approaches. However, she noted that she lets patients know that she’ll focus first on treating the acne itself and then work on the dark spots in later treatments. “If you give people a bleaching agent in the beginning, they’re going to stop using their main products, and they’re going to chase those dark spots. That’s just something that they can’t help doing.”

Dr. McMichael disclosed investigator and consultant relationships with multiple drug makers.

Treating the needs of patients of color requires an understanding of differences that may not be readily apparent, a dermatologist told colleagues. For example, clinicians generally understand what White patients are talking about when they mention acne scarring, but Black patients have a different perception of the term that may be misinterpreted in the doctor’s office.

“Scarring is not usually what they’re talking about, although they may have some of that as well. They’re [typically] talking about what we know as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, not scarring. So right away, you have to clarify,” Amy McMichael, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in a presentation at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease. “When you’re talking about scarring, do you mean the dark spots? What exactly are you concerned about?”

Dr. McMichael highlighted a 2014 study that reported the results of a survey of 208 women (51% were White; 49% were non-White), which included 51 Black, 23 Hispanic, and 16 Asian women aged 25-45 (mean age, 35) with 25 or more lesions. White women were more troubled by facial acne than were women of color (89% vs. 76%, respectively, P < .05), and they were more likely to say lesion clearance was most important to them (58% vs. 32%, respectively, P < .001).

Meanwhile, non-White women were much more likely than were White women to say that clearance of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was most important to them (42% vs. 8%, respectively, P < .0001).

“Seventy percent of [non-White women] felt that their race and ethnicity required targeted attention [in treatment], and two-thirds desired acne treatment that was designed to meet the needs of their skin type,” Dr. McMichael said. “If you don’t address the issues, if you don’t talk about the pigmentation with them or explain how you’re going to address it, people don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like they’ve really seen a dermatologist who understands their needs.”

She added that it’s crucial to ask about over-the-counter products. “If you don’t discuss them, they’ll assume that what they’re doing is okay.” She warns her patients against using and exposing their skin and face to cocoa butter and oils such as tea tree oil.

Research has suggested that among people of color, Blacks and Hispanics are most likely to experience dyspigmentation and scarring, Dr. McMichael said. She advised colleagues to be aware of pomade acne in these two groups of patients. Pomade acne appears along the hair line and is caused by the use of hair products. She also cautioned about acne cosmetica, which can be triggered by products such as makeup, used to cover up acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

As for acne treatments, Dr. McMichael highlighted a long list of familiar topical and oral agents and procedural options. Less familiar strategies include laser and light-based therapies, she said.

As for up-and-coming options, she pointed to topical minocycline, “which allows us to use an anti-inflammatory agent topically rather than orally when we’re trying to get away from using a lot of oral antibiotics.”

Also consider whether female patients have polycystic ovary syndrome, she said. “Then you might consider spironolactone. I certainly use a lot more of that these days to try to avoid long-term oral antibiotics.”

She recommended earlier use of isotretinoin in patients overall, and she urged colleagues to proceed with their standard retinoid approaches. However, she noted that she lets patients know that she’ll focus first on treating the acne itself and then work on the dark spots in later treatments. “If you give people a bleaching agent in the beginning, they’re going to stop using their main products, and they’re going to chase those dark spots. That’s just something that they can’t help doing.”

Dr. McMichael disclosed investigator and consultant relationships with multiple drug makers.