MDedge Dermatology

Within the last decade, almost 3000 articles have been published on the role of diet in the prevention and management of dermatologic conditions. Patients are increasingly interested in—and employing—dietary modifications that may influence skin appearance and aid in the treatment of cutaneous disease.¹ It is essential that dermatologists are familiar with existing evidence on the role of diet in dermatology to counsel patients appropriately. Herein, we discuss the compositions of several popular diets and their proposed utility for dermatologic purposes. We highlight the limited literature that exists surrounding this topic and emphasize the need for future, well-designed clinical trials that study the impact of diet on skin disease.

Ketogenic Diet

The ketogenic diet has a macronutrient profile composed of high fat, low to moderate protein, and very low carbohydrates. Nutritional ketosis occurs as the body begins to use free fatty acids (via beta oxidation) as the primary metabolite driving cellular metabolism. It has been suggested that the ketogenic diet may impart beneficial effects on skin disease; however, limited literature exists on the role of nutritional ketosis in the treatment of dermatologic conditions.

Mechanistically, the ketogenic diet decreases the secretion of insulin and insulinlike growth factor 1, resulting in a reduction of circulating androgens and increased activity of the retinoid X receptor.² In acne vulgaris, it has been suggested that the ketogenic diet may be beneficial in decreasing androgen-induced sebum production and the overproliferation of keratinocytes.^2-7 The ketogenic diet is one of the most rapidly effective dietary strategies for normalizing both insulin and androgens, thus it may theoretically be useful for other metabolic and hormone-dependent skin diseases, such as hidradenitis suppurativa.^8,9

The cutaneous manifestations associated with chronic hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia are numerous and include acanthosis nigricans, acrochordons, diabetic dermopathy, scleredema diabeticorum, bullosis diabeticorum, keratosis pilaris, and generalized granuloma annulare. There also is an increased risk for bacterial and fungal skin infections associated with hyperglycemic states.¹⁰ The ketogenic diet is an effective nonpharmacologic tool for normalizing serum insulin and glucose levels in most patients and may have utility in the aforementioned conditions.^11,12 In addition to improving insulin sensitivity, it has been used as a dietary strategy for weight loss.^11-15 Because obesity and metabolic syndrome are highly correlated with common skin conditions such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and androgenetic alopecia, there may be a role for employing the ketogenic diet in these patient populations.^16,17

Although robust clinical studies on ketogenic diets in skin disease are lacking, a recent single-arm, open-label clinical trial observed benefit in all 37 drug-naïve, overweight patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who underwent a ketogenic weight loss protocol. Significant reductions in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score and dermatology life quality index score were reported (P<.001).¹⁸ Another study of 30 patients with psoriasis found that a 4-week, low-calorie, ketogenic diet resulted in 50% improvement of PASI scores, 10% weight loss, and a reduction in the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-2.¹⁹ Despite these results, it is a challenge to tease out if the specific dietary intervention or its associated weight loss was the main driver in these reported improvements in skin disease.

There is mixed evidence on the anti-inflammatory nature of the ketogenic diet, likely due to wide variation in the composition of foods included in individual diets. In many instances, the ketogenic diet is thought to possess considerable antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capabilities. Ketones are known activators of the nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2 pathway, which upregulates the production of glutathione, a major endogenous intracellular antioxidant.²⁰ Additionally, dietary compounds from foods that are encouraged while on the ketogenic diet, such as sulforaphane from broccoli, also are independent activators of nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2.²¹ Ketones are efficiently utilized by mitochondria, which also may result in the decreased production of reactive oxygen species and lower oxidative stress.²² Moreover, the ketone body β-hydroxybutyrate has demonstrated the ability to reduce proinflammatory IL-1β levels via suppression of nucleotide-binding domain-like receptor protein 3 inflammasome activity.^23,24 The activity of IL-1β is known to be elevated in many dermatologic conditions, including juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, hidradenitis suppurativa, Behçet disease, and other autoinflammatory syndromes.²⁵ Ketones also have been shown to inhibit the nuclear factor–κB proinflammatory signaling pathway.^22,26,27 Overexpression of IL-1β and aberrant activation of nuclear factor–κB are implicated in a variety of inflammatory, autoimmune, and oncologic cutaneous pathologies. The ketogenic diet may prove to be an effective adjunctive treatment for dermatologists to consider in select patient populations.^23,24,28-30

For patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, the ketogenic diet may offer the aforementioned anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects, as well as suppression of the mechanistic target of rapamycin, a major regulator of cell metabolism and proliferation.^31,32 Inhibition of mechanistic target of rapamycin activity has been shown to slow tumor growth and reduce the development of squamous cell carcinoma.^25,33,34 The ketogenic diet also may exploit the preferential utilization of glucose exhibited by many types of cancer cells, thereby “starving” the tumor of its primary fuel source.^35,36 In vitro and animal studies in a variety of cancer types have demonstrated that a ketogenic metabolic state—achieved through the ketogenic diet or fasting—can sensitize tumor cells to chemotherapy and radiation while conferring a protective effect to normal cells.^37-40 This recently described phenomenon is known as differential stress resistance, but it has not been studied in keratinocyte malignancies or melanoma to date. Importantly, some basal cell carcinomas and BRAF V600E–mutated melanomas have worsened while on the ketogenic diet, suggesting more data is needed before it can be recommended for all cancer patients.^41,42 Furthermore, other skin conditions such as prurigo pigmentosa have been associated with initiation of the ketogenic diet.⁴³

Low FODMAP Diet

Fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) are short-chain carbohydrates that are poorly absorbed, osmotically active, and rapidly fermented by intestinal bacteria.⁴⁴ The low FODMAP diet has been shown to be efficacious for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), and some cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).^44-49 A low FODMAP diet may have potential implications for several dermatologic conditions.

Rosacea has been associated with various gastrointestinal tract disorders including irritable bowel syndrome, SIBO, and IBD.^50-54 A single study found that patients with rosacea had a 13-fold increased risk for SIBO.^55,56 Treatment of 40 patients with SIBO using rifaximin resulted in complete resolution of rosacea in all patients, with no relapse after a 3-year follow-up period.⁵⁵ Psoriasis also has been associated with SIBO and IBD.^57,58 One small study found that eradication of SIBO in psoriatic patients resulted in improved PASI scores and colorimetric values.⁵⁹

Although the long-term health consequences of the low FODMAP diet are unknown, further research on such dietary interventions for inflammatory skin conditions is warranted given the mounting evidence of a gut-skin connection and the role of the intestinal microbiome in skin health.^50,51

Gluten-Free Diet

Gluten is a protein found in a variety of grains. Although the role of gluten in the pathogenesis of celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis is indisputable, the deleterious effects of gluten outside of the context of these diseases remain controversial. There may be a compelling case for eliminating gluten in psoriasis patients with seropositivity for celiac disease. A recent systematic review found a 2.2-fold increased risk for celiac disease in psoriasis patients.⁶⁰ Antigliadin antibody titers also were found to be positively correlated with psoriatic disease severity.⁶¹ In addition, one open-label study found a reduction in PASI scores in 73% of patients with antigliadin antibodies after 3 months on a gluten-free diet compared to those without antibodies; however, the study only included 22 patients.⁶² Several other small studies have yielded similar results^63,64; however, antigliadin antibodies are neither the most sensitive nor specific markers of celiac disease, and additional testing should be completed in any patient who may carry this diagnosis. A survey study by the National Psoriasis Foundation found that the dietary change associated with the greatest skin improvement was removal of gluten and nightshade vegetables in approximately 50% of the 1200 psoriasis patients that responded.⁶⁵ Case reports of various dermatologic conditions including sarcoidosis, vitiligo, alopecia areata, lichen planus, dermatomyositis, pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, linear IgA bullous dermatosis, and aphthous ulcerations have reportedly improved with a gluten-free diet; however, this should not be used as primary therapy in patients without celiac disease.^66-71 Because gluten-free diets can be expensive and challenging to follow, a formal assessment for celiac disease should be considered before recommendation of this dietary intervention.

Low Histamine Diet

Histamine is a biogenic amine produced by the decarboxylation of the amino acid histidine.⁷² It is found in several foods in varying amounts. Because bacteria can convert histidine into histamine, many fermented and aged foods such as kimchi, sauerkraut, cheese, and red wine contain high levels of histamine. Individuals who have decreased activity of diamine oxidase (DAO), an enzyme that degrades histamine, may be more susceptible to histamine intolerance.⁷² The symptoms of histamine intolerance are numerous and include gastrointestinal tract distress, rhinorrhea and nasal congestion, headache, urticaria, flushing, and pruritus. Histamine intolerance can mimic an IgE-mediated food allergy; however, allergy testing is negative in these patients. Unfortunately, there is no laboratory test for histamine intolerance; a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge is considered the gold-standard test.⁷²

As it pertains to dermatology, a low histamine diet may play a role in the treatment of certain patients with atopic dermatitis and chronic spontaneous urticaria. One study reported that 17 of 54 (31.5%) atopic patients had higher basal levels of serum histamine compared to controls.⁷³ Another study found that a histamine-free diet led to improvement in both histamine intolerance symptoms and atopic dermatitis disease severity (SCORing atopic dermatitis) in patients with low DAO activity.⁷⁴ In chronic spontaneous urticaria, a recent systematic review found that in 223 patients placed on a low histamine diet for 3 to 4 weeks, 12% and 44% achieved complete and partial remission, respectively.⁷⁵ Although treatment response based on a patient’s DAO activity level has not been correlated, a diet low in histamine may prove useful for patients with persistent atopic dermatitis and chronic spontaneous urticaria who have negative food allergy tests and report exacerbation of symptoms after ingestion of histamine-rich foods.^76,77

Mediterranean Diet

The Mediterranean diet has been touted as one of the healthiest diets to date, and large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated its effectiveness in weight loss, improving insulin sensitivity, and reducing inflammatory cytokine profiles.^78,79 A major criticism of the Mediterranean diet is that it has considerable ambiguity and lacks a precise definition due to the variability of what is consumed in different Mediterranean regions. Generally, the diet emphasizes high consumption of colorful fruits and vegetables, aromatic herbs and spices, olive oil, nuts, and seafood, as well as modest amounts of dairy, eggs, and red meat.⁸⁰ The anti-inflammatory effects of this diet largely have been attributed to its abundance of polyphenols, carotenoids, monounsaturated fatty acids, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).^80,81 Examples of polyphenols include resveratrol in red grapes, quercetin in apples and red onions, and curcumin in turmeric, while examples of carotenoids include lycopene in tomatoes and zeaxanthin in dark leafy greens. Oleic acid is a monounsaturated fatty acid present in high concentrations in olive oil, while eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid are omega-3 PUFAs predominantly found in fish.⁸²

Unfortunately, rigorous clinical trials regarding the Mediterranean diet as it pertains to dermatology have not been undertaken. Numerous observational studies in patients with psoriasis have suggested that close adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with improvement in PASI scores.^83-86 The National Psoriasis Foundation now recommends a trial of the Mediterranean diet in some patients with psoriasis, emphasizing increased dietary intake of olive oil, fish, and vegetables.⁸⁷ Adherence to a Mediterranean diet also has been inversely correlated to the severity of acne vulgaris and hidradenitis suppurativa^88,89; however, these studies failed to account for the multifactorial risk factors associated with these conditions. Mediterranean diets also may impart a chemopreventive effect, supported by a number of in vivo and in vitro studies demonstrating the inhibition and/or reversal of cutaneous DNA damage induced by UV radiation through supplementation with various phytonutrients and omega-3 PUFAs.^81,90-92 Although small case-control studies have found a decreased risk of basal cell carcinoma in those who closely adhered to a Mediterranean diet, more rigorous clinical research is needed.⁹³

Whole-Food, Plant-Based Diet

A whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet is another popular dietary approach that consists of eating fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains in their whole natural form.⁹⁴ This diet discourages all animal products, including red meat, seafood, dairy, and eggs. It is similar to a vegan diet except that it eliminates all highly refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils, and other processed foods.⁹⁴ Randomized clinical studies have demonstrated the WFPB diet to be effective in the treatment of obesity and metabolic syndrome.^95,96

A WFPB diet has been shown to increase the antioxidant capacity of cells, lengthen telomeres, and reduce formation of advanced glycation end products.^94,97,98 These benefits may help combat accelerated skin aging, including increased skin permeability, reduced elasticity and hydration, decreased angiogenesis, impaired immune function, and decreased vitamin D synthesis. Accelerated skin aging can result in delayed wound healing and susceptibility to skin tears and ecchymoses and also may promote the development of cutaneous malignancies.⁹⁹ There remains a lack of clinical data studying a properly formulated WFPB diet in the dermatologic setting.

Paleolithic Diet

The paleolithic (Paleo) diet is an increasingly popular way of eating that attempts to mirror what our ancestors may have consumed between 10,000 and 2.5 million years ago.¹⁰⁰ It is similar to the Mediterranean diet but excludes grains, dairy, legumes, and nightshade vegetables. It also calls for elimination of highly processed sugars and oils as well as chemical food additives and preservatives. There is a strict variation of the diet for individuals with autoimmune disease that also excludes eggs, nuts, and seeds, as these can be inflammatory or immunogenic in some patients.^100-106 Other variations of the diet exist, including the ketogenic Paleo diet, pegan (Paleo vegan) diet, and lacto-Paleo diet.¹⁰⁰ An often cited criticism of the Paleo diet is the low intake of calcium and risk for osteoporosis; however, consumption of calcium-rich foods or a calcium supplement can address this concern.¹⁰⁷

Although small clinical studies have found the Paleo diet to be beneficial for various autoimmune diseases, clinical data evaluating the utility of the diet for cutaneous disease is lacking.^108,109 Numerous randomized trials have demonstrated the Paleo diet to be effective for weight loss and improving insulin sensitivity and lipid levels.^110-116 Thus, the Paleo diet may theoretically serve as a viable adjunct dietary approach to the treatment of cutaneous diseases associated with obesity and metabolic derangement.¹¹⁷

Carnivore Diet

Arguably the most controversial and radical diet is the carnivore diet. As the name implies, the carnivore diet is based on consuming solely animal products. A properly structured carnivore diet emphasizes a “nose-to-tail” eating approach where all parts of the animal including the muscle meats, organs, and fat are consumed. Proponents of the diet cite anthropologic evidence from fossil-stable carbon-13/carbon-12 isotope analyses, craniodental features, and numerous other adaptations that indicate increased consumption of meat during human evolution.^118-122 Notably, many early humans ate a carnivore diet, but life span was very short at this time, suggesting the diet may not be as beneficial as has been suggested.

Despite the abundance of anecdotal evidence supporting its use for a variety of chronic conditions, including cutaneous autoimmune disease, there is a virtual absence of high-quality research on the carnivore diet.^123-125

The purported benefits of the carnivore diet may be attributed to the consumption of organ meats that contain highly bioavailable essential vitamins and minerals, such as iron, zinc, copper, selenium, thiamine, niacin, folate, vitamin B₆, vitamin B₁₂, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin K, and choline.^126-128 Other dietary compounds that have demonstrated benefit for skin health and are predominantly found in animal foods include carnosine, carnitine, creatine, taurine, coenzyme Q10, and collagen.^129-134 Nevertheless, there is no data to recommend the elimination of antioxidant- and micronutrient-dense plant-based foods. Rigorous clinical research evaluating the efficacy and safety of the carnivore diet in dermatologic patients is needed. A carnivore diet should not be undertaken without the assistance of a dietician who can ensure adequate micronutrient and macronutrient support.

Final Thoughts

The adjunctive role of diet in the treatment of skin disease is expanding and becoming more widely accepted among dermatologists. Unfortunately, there remains a lack of randomized controlled trials confirming the efficacy of various dietary interventions in the dermatologic setting. Although evidence-based dietary recommendations currently are limited, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of the varied and nuanced dietary interventions employed by patients.

Ultimately, dietary recommendations must be personalized, considering a patient’s comorbidities, personal beliefs and preferences, and nutrigenetics. The emerging field of dermatonutrigenomics—the study of how dietary compounds interact with one’s genes to influence skin health—may allow for precise dietary recommendations to be made in dermatologic practice. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests targeted toward dermatology patients are already on the market, but their clinical utility awaits validation.¹ Because nutritional science is a constantly evolving field, becoming familiar with these popular diets will serve both dermatologists and their patients well.

Within the last decade, almost 3000 articles have been published on the role of diet in the prevention and management of dermatologic conditions. Patients are increasingly interested in—and employing—dietary modifications that may influence skin appearance and aid in the treatment of cutaneous disease.¹ It is essential that dermatologists are familiar with existing evidence on the role of diet in dermatology to counsel patients appropriately. Herein, we discuss the compositions of several popular diets and their proposed utility for dermatologic purposes. We highlight the limited literature that exists surrounding this topic and emphasize the need for future, well-designed clinical trials that study the impact of diet on skin disease.

Ketogenic Diet

The ketogenic diet has a macronutrient profile composed of high fat, low to moderate protein, and very low carbohydrates. Nutritional ketosis occurs as the body begins to use free fatty acids (via beta oxidation) as the primary metabolite driving cellular metabolism. It has been suggested that the ketogenic diet may impart beneficial effects on skin disease; however, limited literature exists on the role of nutritional ketosis in the treatment of dermatologic conditions.

Mechanistically, the ketogenic diet decreases the secretion of insulin and insulinlike growth factor 1, resulting in a reduction of circulating androgens and increased activity of the retinoid X receptor.² In acne vulgaris, it has been suggested that the ketogenic diet may be beneficial in decreasing androgen-induced sebum production and the overproliferation of keratinocytes.^2-7 The ketogenic diet is one of the most rapidly effective dietary strategies for normalizing both insulin and androgens, thus it may theoretically be useful for other metabolic and hormone-dependent skin diseases, such as hidradenitis suppurativa.^8,9

The cutaneous manifestations associated with chronic hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia are numerous and include acanthosis nigricans, acrochordons, diabetic dermopathy, scleredema diabeticorum, bullosis diabeticorum, keratosis pilaris, and generalized granuloma annulare. There also is an increased risk for bacterial and fungal skin infections associated with hyperglycemic states.¹⁰ The ketogenic diet is an effective nonpharmacologic tool for normalizing serum insulin and glucose levels in most patients and may have utility in the aforementioned conditions.^11,12 In addition to improving insulin sensitivity, it has been used as a dietary strategy for weight loss.^11-15 Because obesity and metabolic syndrome are highly correlated with common skin conditions such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and androgenetic alopecia, there may be a role for employing the ketogenic diet in these patient populations.^16,17

Although robust clinical studies on ketogenic diets in skin disease are lacking, a recent single-arm, open-label clinical trial observed benefit in all 37 drug-naïve, overweight patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who underwent a ketogenic weight loss protocol. Significant reductions in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score and dermatology life quality index score were reported (P<.001).¹⁸ Another study of 30 patients with psoriasis found that a 4-week, low-calorie, ketogenic diet resulted in 50% improvement of PASI scores, 10% weight loss, and a reduction in the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-2.¹⁹ Despite these results, it is a challenge to tease out if the specific dietary intervention or its associated weight loss was the main driver in these reported improvements in skin disease.

There is mixed evidence on the anti-inflammatory nature of the ketogenic diet, likely due to wide variation in the composition of foods included in individual diets. In many instances, the ketogenic diet is thought to possess considerable antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capabilities. Ketones are known activators of the nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2 pathway, which upregulates the production of glutathione, a major endogenous intracellular antioxidant.²⁰ Additionally, dietary compounds from foods that are encouraged while on the ketogenic diet, such as sulforaphane from broccoli, also are independent activators of nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2.²¹ Ketones are efficiently utilized by mitochondria, which also may result in the decreased production of reactive oxygen species and lower oxidative stress.²² Moreover, the ketone body β-hydroxybutyrate has demonstrated the ability to reduce proinflammatory IL-1β levels via suppression of nucleotide-binding domain-like receptor protein 3 inflammasome activity.^23,24 The activity of IL-1β is known to be elevated in many dermatologic conditions, including juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, hidradenitis suppurativa, Behçet disease, and other autoinflammatory syndromes.²⁵ Ketones also have been shown to inhibit the nuclear factor–κB proinflammatory signaling pathway.^22,26,27 Overexpression of IL-1β and aberrant activation of nuclear factor–κB are implicated in a variety of inflammatory, autoimmune, and oncologic cutaneous pathologies. The ketogenic diet may prove to be an effective adjunctive treatment for dermatologists to consider in select patient populations.^23,24,28-30

For patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, the ketogenic diet may offer the aforementioned anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects, as well as suppression of the mechanistic target of rapamycin, a major regulator of cell metabolism and proliferation.^31,32 Inhibition of mechanistic target of rapamycin activity has been shown to slow tumor growth and reduce the development of squamous cell carcinoma.^25,33,34 The ketogenic diet also may exploit the preferential utilization of glucose exhibited by many types of cancer cells, thereby “starving” the tumor of its primary fuel source.^35,36 In vitro and animal studies in a variety of cancer types have demonstrated that a ketogenic metabolic state—achieved through the ketogenic diet or fasting—can sensitize tumor cells to chemotherapy and radiation while conferring a protective effect to normal cells.^37-40 This recently described phenomenon is known as differential stress resistance, but it has not been studied in keratinocyte malignancies or melanoma to date. Importantly, some basal cell carcinomas and BRAF V600E–mutated melanomas have worsened while on the ketogenic diet, suggesting more data is needed before it can be recommended for all cancer patients.^41,42 Furthermore, other skin conditions such as prurigo pigmentosa have been associated with initiation of the ketogenic diet.⁴³

Low FODMAP Diet

Fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) are short-chain carbohydrates that are poorly absorbed, osmotically active, and rapidly fermented by intestinal bacteria.⁴⁴ The low FODMAP diet has been shown to be efficacious for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), and some cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).^44-49 A low FODMAP diet may have potential implications for several dermatologic conditions.

Rosacea has been associated with various gastrointestinal tract disorders including irritable bowel syndrome, SIBO, and IBD.^50-54 A single study found that patients with rosacea had a 13-fold increased risk for SIBO.^55,56 Treatment of 40 patients with SIBO using rifaximin resulted in complete resolution of rosacea in all patients, with no relapse after a 3-year follow-up period.⁵⁵ Psoriasis also has been associated with SIBO and IBD.^57,58 One small study found that eradication of SIBO in psoriatic patients resulted in improved PASI scores and colorimetric values.⁵⁹

Although the long-term health consequences of the low FODMAP diet are unknown, further research on such dietary interventions for inflammatory skin conditions is warranted given the mounting evidence of a gut-skin connection and the role of the intestinal microbiome in skin health.^50,51

Gluten-Free Diet

Gluten is a protein found in a variety of grains. Although the role of gluten in the pathogenesis of celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis is indisputable, the deleterious effects of gluten outside of the context of these diseases remain controversial. There may be a compelling case for eliminating gluten in psoriasis patients with seropositivity for celiac disease. A recent systematic review found a 2.2-fold increased risk for celiac disease in psoriasis patients.⁶⁰ Antigliadin antibody titers also were found to be positively correlated with psoriatic disease severity.⁶¹ In addition, one open-label study found a reduction in PASI scores in 73% of patients with antigliadin antibodies after 3 months on a gluten-free diet compared to those without antibodies; however, the study only included 22 patients.⁶² Several other small studies have yielded similar results^63,64; however, antigliadin antibodies are neither the most sensitive nor specific markers of celiac disease, and additional testing should be completed in any patient who may carry this diagnosis. A survey study by the National Psoriasis Foundation found that the dietary change associated with the greatest skin improvement was removal of gluten and nightshade vegetables in approximately 50% of the 1200 psoriasis patients that responded.⁶⁵ Case reports of various dermatologic conditions including sarcoidosis, vitiligo, alopecia areata, lichen planus, dermatomyositis, pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, linear IgA bullous dermatosis, and aphthous ulcerations have reportedly improved with a gluten-free diet; however, this should not be used as primary therapy in patients without celiac disease.^66-71 Because gluten-free diets can be expensive and challenging to follow, a formal assessment for celiac disease should be considered before recommendation of this dietary intervention.

Low Histamine Diet

Histamine is a biogenic amine produced by the decarboxylation of the amino acid histidine.⁷² It is found in several foods in varying amounts. Because bacteria can convert histidine into histamine, many fermented and aged foods such as kimchi, sauerkraut, cheese, and red wine contain high levels of histamine. Individuals who have decreased activity of diamine oxidase (DAO), an enzyme that degrades histamine, may be more susceptible to histamine intolerance.⁷² The symptoms of histamine intolerance are numerous and include gastrointestinal tract distress, rhinorrhea and nasal congestion, headache, urticaria, flushing, and pruritus. Histamine intolerance can mimic an IgE-mediated food allergy; however, allergy testing is negative in these patients. Unfortunately, there is no laboratory test for histamine intolerance; a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge is considered the gold-standard test.⁷²

As it pertains to dermatology, a low histamine diet may play a role in the treatment of certain patients with atopic dermatitis and chronic spontaneous urticaria. One study reported that 17 of 54 (31.5%) atopic patients had higher basal levels of serum histamine compared to controls.⁷³ Another study found that a histamine-free diet led to improvement in both histamine intolerance symptoms and atopic dermatitis disease severity (SCORing atopic dermatitis) in patients with low DAO activity.⁷⁴ In chronic spontaneous urticaria, a recent systematic review found that in 223 patients placed on a low histamine diet for 3 to 4 weeks, 12% and 44% achieved complete and partial remission, respectively.⁷⁵ Although treatment response based on a patient’s DAO activity level has not been correlated, a diet low in histamine may prove useful for patients with persistent atopic dermatitis and chronic spontaneous urticaria who have negative food allergy tests and report exacerbation of symptoms after ingestion of histamine-rich foods.^76,77

Mediterranean Diet

The Mediterranean diet has been touted as one of the healthiest diets to date, and large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated its effectiveness in weight loss, improving insulin sensitivity, and reducing inflammatory cytokine profiles.^78,79 A major criticism of the Mediterranean diet is that it has considerable ambiguity and lacks a precise definition due to the variability of what is consumed in different Mediterranean regions. Generally, the diet emphasizes high consumption of colorful fruits and vegetables, aromatic herbs and spices, olive oil, nuts, and seafood, as well as modest amounts of dairy, eggs, and red meat.⁸⁰ The anti-inflammatory effects of this diet largely have been attributed to its abundance of polyphenols, carotenoids, monounsaturated fatty acids, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).^80,81 Examples of polyphenols include resveratrol in red grapes, quercetin in apples and red onions, and curcumin in turmeric, while examples of carotenoids include lycopene in tomatoes and zeaxanthin in dark leafy greens. Oleic acid is a monounsaturated fatty acid present in high concentrations in olive oil, while eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid are omega-3 PUFAs predominantly found in fish.⁸²

Unfortunately, rigorous clinical trials regarding the Mediterranean diet as it pertains to dermatology have not been undertaken. Numerous observational studies in patients with psoriasis have suggested that close adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with improvement in PASI scores.^83-86 The National Psoriasis Foundation now recommends a trial of the Mediterranean diet in some patients with psoriasis, emphasizing increased dietary intake of olive oil, fish, and vegetables.⁸⁷ Adherence to a Mediterranean diet also has been inversely correlated to the severity of acne vulgaris and hidradenitis suppurativa^88,89; however, these studies failed to account for the multifactorial risk factors associated with these conditions. Mediterranean diets also may impart a chemopreventive effect, supported by a number of in vivo and in vitro studies demonstrating the inhibition and/or reversal of cutaneous DNA damage induced by UV radiation through supplementation with various phytonutrients and omega-3 PUFAs.^81,90-92 Although small case-control studies have found a decreased risk of basal cell carcinoma in those who closely adhered to a Mediterranean diet, more rigorous clinical research is needed.⁹³

Whole-Food, Plant-Based Diet

A whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet is another popular dietary approach that consists of eating fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains in their whole natural form.⁹⁴ This diet discourages all animal products, including red meat, seafood, dairy, and eggs. It is similar to a vegan diet except that it eliminates all highly refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils, and other processed foods.⁹⁴ Randomized clinical studies have demonstrated the WFPB diet to be effective in the treatment of obesity and metabolic syndrome.^95,96

A WFPB diet has been shown to increase the antioxidant capacity of cells, lengthen telomeres, and reduce formation of advanced glycation end products.^94,97,98 These benefits may help combat accelerated skin aging, including increased skin permeability, reduced elasticity and hydration, decreased angiogenesis, impaired immune function, and decreased vitamin D synthesis. Accelerated skin aging can result in delayed wound healing and susceptibility to skin tears and ecchymoses and also may promote the development of cutaneous malignancies.⁹⁹ There remains a lack of clinical data studying a properly formulated WFPB diet in the dermatologic setting.

Paleolithic Diet

The paleolithic (Paleo) diet is an increasingly popular way of eating that attempts to mirror what our ancestors may have consumed between 10,000 and 2.5 million years ago.¹⁰⁰ It is similar to the Mediterranean diet but excludes grains, dairy, legumes, and nightshade vegetables. It also calls for elimination of highly processed sugars and oils as well as chemical food additives and preservatives. There is a strict variation of the diet for individuals with autoimmune disease that also excludes eggs, nuts, and seeds, as these can be inflammatory or immunogenic in some patients.^100-106 Other variations of the diet exist, including the ketogenic Paleo diet, pegan (Paleo vegan) diet, and lacto-Paleo diet.¹⁰⁰ An often cited criticism of the Paleo diet is the low intake of calcium and risk for osteoporosis; however, consumption of calcium-rich foods or a calcium supplement can address this concern.¹⁰⁷

Although small clinical studies have found the Paleo diet to be beneficial for various autoimmune diseases, clinical data evaluating the utility of the diet for cutaneous disease is lacking.^108,109 Numerous randomized trials have demonstrated the Paleo diet to be effective for weight loss and improving insulin sensitivity and lipid levels.^110-116 Thus, the Paleo diet may theoretically serve as a viable adjunct dietary approach to the treatment of cutaneous diseases associated with obesity and metabolic derangement.¹¹⁷

Carnivore Diet

Arguably the most controversial and radical diet is the carnivore diet. As the name implies, the carnivore diet is based on consuming solely animal products. A properly structured carnivore diet emphasizes a “nose-to-tail” eating approach where all parts of the animal including the muscle meats, organs, and fat are consumed. Proponents of the diet cite anthropologic evidence from fossil-stable carbon-13/carbon-12 isotope analyses, craniodental features, and numerous other adaptations that indicate increased consumption of meat during human evolution.^118-122 Notably, many early humans ate a carnivore diet, but life span was very short at this time, suggesting the diet may not be as beneficial as has been suggested.

Despite the abundance of anecdotal evidence supporting its use for a variety of chronic conditions, including cutaneous autoimmune disease, there is a virtual absence of high-quality research on the carnivore diet.^123-125

The purported benefits of the carnivore diet may be attributed to the consumption of organ meats that contain highly bioavailable essential vitamins and minerals, such as iron, zinc, copper, selenium, thiamine, niacin, folate, vitamin B₆, vitamin B₁₂, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin K, and choline.^126-128 Other dietary compounds that have demonstrated benefit for skin health and are predominantly found in animal foods include carnosine, carnitine, creatine, taurine, coenzyme Q10, and collagen.^129-134 Nevertheless, there is no data to recommend the elimination of antioxidant- and micronutrient-dense plant-based foods. Rigorous clinical research evaluating the efficacy and safety of the carnivore diet in dermatologic patients is needed. A carnivore diet should not be undertaken without the assistance of a dietician who can ensure adequate micronutrient and macronutrient support.

Final Thoughts

The adjunctive role of diet in the treatment of skin disease is expanding and becoming more widely accepted among dermatologists. Unfortunately, there remains a lack of randomized controlled trials confirming the efficacy of various dietary interventions in the dermatologic setting. Although evidence-based dietary recommendations currently are limited, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of the varied and nuanced dietary interventions employed by patients.

Ultimately, dietary recommendations must be personalized, considering a patient’s comorbidities, personal beliefs and preferences, and nutrigenetics. The emerging field of dermatonutrigenomics—the study of how dietary compounds interact with one’s genes to influence skin health—may allow for precise dietary recommendations to be made in dermatologic practice. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests targeted toward dermatology patients are already on the market, but their clinical utility awaits validation.¹ Because nutritional science is a constantly evolving field, becoming familiar with these popular diets will serve both dermatologists and their patients well.

Within the last decade, almost 3000 articles have been published on the role of diet in the prevention and management of dermatologic conditions. Patients are increasingly interested in—and employing—dietary modifications that may influence skin appearance and aid in the treatment of cutaneous disease.¹ It is essential that dermatologists are familiar with existing evidence on the role of diet in dermatology to counsel patients appropriately. Herein, we discuss the compositions of several popular diets and their proposed utility for dermatologic purposes. We highlight the limited literature that exists surrounding this topic and emphasize the need for future, well-designed clinical trials that study the impact of diet on skin disease.

Ketogenic Diet

The ketogenic diet has a macronutrient profile composed of high fat, low to moderate protein, and very low carbohydrates. Nutritional ketosis occurs as the body begins to use free fatty acids (via beta oxidation) as the primary metabolite driving cellular metabolism. It has been suggested that the ketogenic diet may impart beneficial effects on skin disease; however, limited literature exists on the role of nutritional ketosis in the treatment of dermatologic conditions.

Mechanistically, the ketogenic diet decreases the secretion of insulin and insulinlike growth factor 1, resulting in a reduction of circulating androgens and increased activity of the retinoid X receptor.² In acne vulgaris, it has been suggested that the ketogenic diet may be beneficial in decreasing androgen-induced sebum production and the overproliferation of keratinocytes.^2-7 The ketogenic diet is one of the most rapidly effective dietary strategies for normalizing both insulin and androgens, thus it may theoretically be useful for other metabolic and hormone-dependent skin diseases, such as hidradenitis suppurativa.^8,9

The cutaneous manifestations associated with chronic hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia are numerous and include acanthosis nigricans, acrochordons, diabetic dermopathy, scleredema diabeticorum, bullosis diabeticorum, keratosis pilaris, and generalized granuloma annulare. There also is an increased risk for bacterial and fungal skin infections associated with hyperglycemic states.¹⁰ The ketogenic diet is an effective nonpharmacologic tool for normalizing serum insulin and glucose levels in most patients and may have utility in the aforementioned conditions.^11,12 In addition to improving insulin sensitivity, it has been used as a dietary strategy for weight loss.^11-15 Because obesity and metabolic syndrome are highly correlated with common skin conditions such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and androgenetic alopecia, there may be a role for employing the ketogenic diet in these patient populations.^16,17

Although robust clinical studies on ketogenic diets in skin disease are lacking, a recent single-arm, open-label clinical trial observed benefit in all 37 drug-naïve, overweight patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who underwent a ketogenic weight loss protocol. Significant reductions in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score and dermatology life quality index score were reported (P<.001).¹⁸ Another study of 30 patients with psoriasis found that a 4-week, low-calorie, ketogenic diet resulted in 50% improvement of PASI scores, 10% weight loss, and a reduction in the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-2.¹⁹ Despite these results, it is a challenge to tease out if the specific dietary intervention or its associated weight loss was the main driver in these reported improvements in skin disease.

There is mixed evidence on the anti-inflammatory nature of the ketogenic diet, likely due to wide variation in the composition of foods included in individual diets. In many instances, the ketogenic diet is thought to possess considerable antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capabilities. Ketones are known activators of the nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2 pathway, which upregulates the production of glutathione, a major endogenous intracellular antioxidant.²⁰ Additionally, dietary compounds from foods that are encouraged while on the ketogenic diet, such as sulforaphane from broccoli, also are independent activators of nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2.²¹ Ketones are efficiently utilized by mitochondria, which also may result in the decreased production of reactive oxygen species and lower oxidative stress.²² Moreover, the ketone body β-hydroxybutyrate has demonstrated the ability to reduce proinflammatory IL-1β levels via suppression of nucleotide-binding domain-like receptor protein 3 inflammasome activity.^23,24 The activity of IL-1β is known to be elevated in many dermatologic conditions, including juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, hidradenitis suppurativa, Behçet disease, and other autoinflammatory syndromes.²⁵ Ketones also have been shown to inhibit the nuclear factor–κB proinflammatory signaling pathway.^22,26,27 Overexpression of IL-1β and aberrant activation of nuclear factor–κB are implicated in a variety of inflammatory, autoimmune, and oncologic cutaneous pathologies. The ketogenic diet may prove to be an effective adjunctive treatment for dermatologists to consider in select patient populations.^23,24,28-30

For patients with keratinocyte carcinomas, the ketogenic diet may offer the aforementioned anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects, as well as suppression of the mechanistic target of rapamycin, a major regulator of cell metabolism and proliferation.^31,32 Inhibition of mechanistic target of rapamycin activity has been shown to slow tumor growth and reduce the development of squamous cell carcinoma.^25,33,34 The ketogenic diet also may exploit the preferential utilization of glucose exhibited by many types of cancer cells, thereby “starving” the tumor of its primary fuel source.^35,36 In vitro and animal studies in a variety of cancer types have demonstrated that a ketogenic metabolic state—achieved through the ketogenic diet or fasting—can sensitize tumor cells to chemotherapy and radiation while conferring a protective effect to normal cells.^37-40 This recently described phenomenon is known as differential stress resistance, but it has not been studied in keratinocyte malignancies or melanoma to date. Importantly, some basal cell carcinomas and BRAF V600E–mutated melanomas have worsened while on the ketogenic diet, suggesting more data is needed before it can be recommended for all cancer patients.^41,42 Furthermore, other skin conditions such as prurigo pigmentosa have been associated with initiation of the ketogenic diet.⁴³

Low FODMAP Diet

Fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) are short-chain carbohydrates that are poorly absorbed, osmotically active, and rapidly fermented by intestinal bacteria.⁴⁴ The low FODMAP diet has been shown to be efficacious for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), and some cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).^44-49 A low FODMAP diet may have potential implications for several dermatologic conditions.

Rosacea has been associated with various gastrointestinal tract disorders including irritable bowel syndrome, SIBO, and IBD.^50-54 A single study found that patients with rosacea had a 13-fold increased risk for SIBO.^55,56 Treatment of 40 patients with SIBO using rifaximin resulted in complete resolution of rosacea in all patients, with no relapse after a 3-year follow-up period.⁵⁵ Psoriasis also has been associated with SIBO and IBD.^57,58 One small study found that eradication of SIBO in psoriatic patients resulted in improved PASI scores and colorimetric values.⁵⁹

Although the long-term health consequences of the low FODMAP diet are unknown, further research on such dietary interventions for inflammatory skin conditions is warranted given the mounting evidence of a gut-skin connection and the role of the intestinal microbiome in skin health.^50,51

Gluten-Free Diet

Gluten is a protein found in a variety of grains. Although the role of gluten in the pathogenesis of celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis is indisputable, the deleterious effects of gluten outside of the context of these diseases remain controversial. There may be a compelling case for eliminating gluten in psoriasis patients with seropositivity for celiac disease. A recent systematic review found a 2.2-fold increased risk for celiac disease in psoriasis patients.⁶⁰ Antigliadin antibody titers also were found to be positively correlated with psoriatic disease severity.⁶¹ In addition, one open-label study found a reduction in PASI scores in 73% of patients with antigliadin antibodies after 3 months on a gluten-free diet compared to those without antibodies; however, the study only included 22 patients.⁶² Several other small studies have yielded similar results^63,64; however, antigliadin antibodies are neither the most sensitive nor specific markers of celiac disease, and additional testing should be completed in any patient who may carry this diagnosis. A survey study by the National Psoriasis Foundation found that the dietary change associated with the greatest skin improvement was removal of gluten and nightshade vegetables in approximately 50% of the 1200 psoriasis patients that responded.⁶⁵ Case reports of various dermatologic conditions including sarcoidosis, vitiligo, alopecia areata, lichen planus, dermatomyositis, pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, linear IgA bullous dermatosis, and aphthous ulcerations have reportedly improved with a gluten-free diet; however, this should not be used as primary therapy in patients without celiac disease.^66-71 Because gluten-free diets can be expensive and challenging to follow, a formal assessment for celiac disease should be considered before recommendation of this dietary intervention.

Low Histamine Diet

Histamine is a biogenic amine produced by the decarboxylation of the amino acid histidine.⁷² It is found in several foods in varying amounts. Because bacteria can convert histidine into histamine, many fermented and aged foods such as kimchi, sauerkraut, cheese, and red wine contain high levels of histamine. Individuals who have decreased activity of diamine oxidase (DAO), an enzyme that degrades histamine, may be more susceptible to histamine intolerance.⁷² The symptoms of histamine intolerance are numerous and include gastrointestinal tract distress, rhinorrhea and nasal congestion, headache, urticaria, flushing, and pruritus. Histamine intolerance can mimic an IgE-mediated food allergy; however, allergy testing is negative in these patients. Unfortunately, there is no laboratory test for histamine intolerance; a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge is considered the gold-standard test.⁷²

As it pertains to dermatology, a low histamine diet may play a role in the treatment of certain patients with atopic dermatitis and chronic spontaneous urticaria. One study reported that 17 of 54 (31.5%) atopic patients had higher basal levels of serum histamine compared to controls.⁷³ Another study found that a histamine-free diet led to improvement in both histamine intolerance symptoms and atopic dermatitis disease severity (SCORing atopic dermatitis) in patients with low DAO activity.⁷⁴ In chronic spontaneous urticaria, a recent systematic review found that in 223 patients placed on a low histamine diet for 3 to 4 weeks, 12% and 44% achieved complete and partial remission, respectively.⁷⁵ Although treatment response based on a patient’s DAO activity level has not been correlated, a diet low in histamine may prove useful for patients with persistent atopic dermatitis and chronic spontaneous urticaria who have negative food allergy tests and report exacerbation of symptoms after ingestion of histamine-rich foods.^76,77

Mediterranean Diet

The Mediterranean diet has been touted as one of the healthiest diets to date, and large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated its effectiveness in weight loss, improving insulin sensitivity, and reducing inflammatory cytokine profiles.^78,79 A major criticism of the Mediterranean diet is that it has considerable ambiguity and lacks a precise definition due to the variability of what is consumed in different Mediterranean regions. Generally, the diet emphasizes high consumption of colorful fruits and vegetables, aromatic herbs and spices, olive oil, nuts, and seafood, as well as modest amounts of dairy, eggs, and red meat.⁸⁰ The anti-inflammatory effects of this diet largely have been attributed to its abundance of polyphenols, carotenoids, monounsaturated fatty acids, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).^80,81 Examples of polyphenols include resveratrol in red grapes, quercetin in apples and red onions, and curcumin in turmeric, while examples of carotenoids include lycopene in tomatoes and zeaxanthin in dark leafy greens. Oleic acid is a monounsaturated fatty acid present in high concentrations in olive oil, while eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid are omega-3 PUFAs predominantly found in fish.⁸²

Unfortunately, rigorous clinical trials regarding the Mediterranean diet as it pertains to dermatology have not been undertaken. Numerous observational studies in patients with psoriasis have suggested that close adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with improvement in PASI scores.^83-86 The National Psoriasis Foundation now recommends a trial of the Mediterranean diet in some patients with psoriasis, emphasizing increased dietary intake of olive oil, fish, and vegetables.⁸⁷ Adherence to a Mediterranean diet also has been inversely correlated to the severity of acne vulgaris and hidradenitis suppurativa^88,89; however, these studies failed to account for the multifactorial risk factors associated with these conditions. Mediterranean diets also may impart a chemopreventive effect, supported by a number of in vivo and in vitro studies demonstrating the inhibition and/or reversal of cutaneous DNA damage induced by UV radiation through supplementation with various phytonutrients and omega-3 PUFAs.^81,90-92 Although small case-control studies have found a decreased risk of basal cell carcinoma in those who closely adhered to a Mediterranean diet, more rigorous clinical research is needed.⁹³

Whole-Food, Plant-Based Diet

A whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet is another popular dietary approach that consists of eating fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains in their whole natural form.⁹⁴ This diet discourages all animal products, including red meat, seafood, dairy, and eggs. It is similar to a vegan diet except that it eliminates all highly refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils, and other processed foods.⁹⁴ Randomized clinical studies have demonstrated the WFPB diet to be effective in the treatment of obesity and metabolic syndrome.^95,96

A WFPB diet has been shown to increase the antioxidant capacity of cells, lengthen telomeres, and reduce formation of advanced glycation end products.^94,97,98 These benefits may help combat accelerated skin aging, including increased skin permeability, reduced elasticity and hydration, decreased angiogenesis, impaired immune function, and decreased vitamin D synthesis. Accelerated skin aging can result in delayed wound healing and susceptibility to skin tears and ecchymoses and also may promote the development of cutaneous malignancies.⁹⁹ There remains a lack of clinical data studying a properly formulated WFPB diet in the dermatologic setting.

Paleolithic Diet

The paleolithic (Paleo) diet is an increasingly popular way of eating that attempts to mirror what our ancestors may have consumed between 10,000 and 2.5 million years ago.¹⁰⁰ It is similar to the Mediterranean diet but excludes grains, dairy, legumes, and nightshade vegetables. It also calls for elimination of highly processed sugars and oils as well as chemical food additives and preservatives. There is a strict variation of the diet for individuals with autoimmune disease that also excludes eggs, nuts, and seeds, as these can be inflammatory or immunogenic in some patients.^100-106 Other variations of the diet exist, including the ketogenic Paleo diet, pegan (Paleo vegan) diet, and lacto-Paleo diet.¹⁰⁰ An often cited criticism of the Paleo diet is the low intake of calcium and risk for osteoporosis; however, consumption of calcium-rich foods or a calcium supplement can address this concern.¹⁰⁷

Although small clinical studies have found the Paleo diet to be beneficial for various autoimmune diseases, clinical data evaluating the utility of the diet for cutaneous disease is lacking.^108,109 Numerous randomized trials have demonstrated the Paleo diet to be effective for weight loss and improving insulin sensitivity and lipid levels.^110-116 Thus, the Paleo diet may theoretically serve as a viable adjunct dietary approach to the treatment of cutaneous diseases associated with obesity and metabolic derangement.¹¹⁷

Carnivore Diet

Arguably the most controversial and radical diet is the carnivore diet. As the name implies, the carnivore diet is based on consuming solely animal products. A properly structured carnivore diet emphasizes a “nose-to-tail” eating approach where all parts of the animal including the muscle meats, organs, and fat are consumed. Proponents of the diet cite anthropologic evidence from fossil-stable carbon-13/carbon-12 isotope analyses, craniodental features, and numerous other adaptations that indicate increased consumption of meat during human evolution.^118-122 Notably, many early humans ate a carnivore diet, but life span was very short at this time, suggesting the diet may not be as beneficial as has been suggested.

Despite the abundance of anecdotal evidence supporting its use for a variety of chronic conditions, including cutaneous autoimmune disease, there is a virtual absence of high-quality research on the carnivore diet.^123-125

The purported benefits of the carnivore diet may be attributed to the consumption of organ meats that contain highly bioavailable essential vitamins and minerals, such as iron, zinc, copper, selenium, thiamine, niacin, folate, vitamin B₆, vitamin B₁₂, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin K, and choline.^126-128 Other dietary compounds that have demonstrated benefit for skin health and are predominantly found in animal foods include carnosine, carnitine, creatine, taurine, coenzyme Q10, and collagen.^129-134 Nevertheless, there is no data to recommend the elimination of antioxidant- and micronutrient-dense plant-based foods. Rigorous clinical research evaluating the efficacy and safety of the carnivore diet in dermatologic patients is needed. A carnivore diet should not be undertaken without the assistance of a dietician who can ensure adequate micronutrient and macronutrient support.

Final Thoughts

The adjunctive role of diet in the treatment of skin disease is expanding and becoming more widely accepted among dermatologists. Unfortunately, there remains a lack of randomized controlled trials confirming the efficacy of various dietary interventions in the dermatologic setting. Although evidence-based dietary recommendations currently are limited, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of the varied and nuanced dietary interventions employed by patients.

Ultimately, dietary recommendations must be personalized, considering a patient’s comorbidities, personal beliefs and preferences, and nutrigenetics. The emerging field of dermatonutrigenomics—the study of how dietary compounds interact with one’s genes to influence skin health—may allow for precise dietary recommendations to be made in dermatologic practice. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests targeted toward dermatology patients are already on the market, but their clinical utility awaits validation.¹ Because nutritional science is a constantly evolving field, becoming familiar with these popular diets will serve both dermatologists and their patients well.

Effective on January 1, 2021, the outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes underwent substantial changes, which were the culmination of multiple years of revision and surveying via the American Medical Association (AMA) Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Current Procedural Terminology (RUC-CPT) process to streamline definitions and promote consistency as well as to decrease the administrative burden for all specialties within the house of medicine.¹ These updates represent a notable change from the previous documentation requirements for this oft used family of codes. Herein, we break down some of the highlights of the changes and how they may be applied for some commonly used dermatologic diagnoses.

Time Is Time Is Time

Prior to the 2021 revisions, a physician generally could only code for an E/M level by time for a face-to-face encounter dominated by counseling and/or care coordination. With the new updates, any encounter can be coded by total time spent by the physician with the patient¹; however, clinical staff time is not included. There also are now clear guidelines of the time ranges corresponding to the level of E/M,¹ as noted in Table 1.

Importantly, time now includes not just face-to-face time with the patient but also any time on the date of the encounter that the physician is involved in the care of the patient when not reported with a separate code. This can include reviewing notes or data before or after the examination, care coordination, ordering laboratory tests, and providing any documentation related to the encounter. Importantly, this applies only when these activities are done on the date of the encounter.

If you work with a nurse practitioner or physician assistant (PA) who assists you and you are the one reporting the service, you cannot double-dip. For example, if your PA spends 10 minutes alone with a patient, you are in the room together for 5 minutes, the PA spends another 10 minutes alone with the patient afterward, and you do chart work for 10 minutes at the end of the day, the total time spent is 35 minutes, not 40 minutes, as you cannot count the time you and the PA spent together twice.

Decisions, Decisions

Evaluation and management coding also can be determined via the level of medical decision-making (MDM). Per the 2021 guidelines, MDM is comprised of 3 categories: (1) number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter, (2) amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed or analyzed, and (3) risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management.¹ To reach a certain overall E/M level, 2 of 3 categories must be met or exceeded. Let’s dive into each of these in a little more detail.

Number and Complexity of Problems Addressed at the Encounter
First, it is important to understand the definition of a problem addressed. Per AMA guidelines, this includes a disease, condition, illness, injury, symptom, sign, finding, complaint, or other matter addressed at the encounter that is evaluated or treated at the encounter by the physician. If the problem is referred to another provider without evaluation or consideration of treatment, it is not considered to be a problem addressed and cannot count toward this first category. An example could be a patient with a lump on the abdomen that you refer to plastic or general surgery for evaluation and treatment.

Once you have determined that you are addressing a problem, you will need to determine the level of complexity of the problem, as outlined in Table 2. Keep in mind that some entities and disease states in dermatology may fit the requirements of more than 1 level of complexity depending on the clinical situation, while there are many entities in dermatology that may not be perfectly captured by any of the levels described. In these situations, clinical judgement is required to determine where the problem would best fit. Importantly, whatever you decide, your documentation should support that decision.

Putting It All Together

Once you have determined each of the above 3 categories, you can put them together into the MDM chart to ascertain the overall level of MDM. (The official AMA medical decision-making grid is available online [https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf]). Keep in mind that 2 of 3 columns in the table must be obtained in that level to reach an overall E/M level; for example, a visit that addresses 2 self-limited or minor problems (level 3) in which no data is reviewed (level 2) and involves prescribing a new medication (level 4), would be an overall level 3 visit.

Final Thoughts

The outpatient E/M guidelines have undergone substantial revisions; therefore, it is crucial to understand the updated definitions to ensure proper billing and documentation. History and physical examination documentation must be medically appropriate but are no longer used to determine overall E/M level; time and MDM are the sole options that can be used. Importantly, try to code as accurately as possible, documenting which problems were both noted and addressed. If you are unsure of a definition within the updated changes and MDM table, referencing the appropriate sources for guidance is recommended.

Although representing a considerable shift, the revaluation of this family of codes and the intended decrease in documentation burden has the ability to be a positive gain for dermatologists. Expect other code families to mirror these changes in the next few years.

Effective on January 1, 2021, the outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes underwent substantial changes, which were the culmination of multiple years of revision and surveying via the American Medical Association (AMA) Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Current Procedural Terminology (RUC-CPT) process to streamline definitions and promote consistency as well as to decrease the administrative burden for all specialties within the house of medicine.¹ These updates represent a notable change from the previous documentation requirements for this oft used family of codes. Herein, we break down some of the highlights of the changes and how they may be applied for some commonly used dermatologic diagnoses.

Time Is Time Is Time

Prior to the 2021 revisions, a physician generally could only code for an E/M level by time for a face-to-face encounter dominated by counseling and/or care coordination. With the new updates, any encounter can be coded by total time spent by the physician with the patient¹; however, clinical staff time is not included. There also are now clear guidelines of the time ranges corresponding to the level of E/M,¹ as noted in Table 1.

Importantly, time now includes not just face-to-face time with the patient but also any time on the date of the encounter that the physician is involved in the care of the patient when not reported with a separate code. This can include reviewing notes or data before or after the examination, care coordination, ordering laboratory tests, and providing any documentation related to the encounter. Importantly, this applies only when these activities are done on the date of the encounter.

If you work with a nurse practitioner or physician assistant (PA) who assists you and you are the one reporting the service, you cannot double-dip. For example, if your PA spends 10 minutes alone with a patient, you are in the room together for 5 minutes, the PA spends another 10 minutes alone with the patient afterward, and you do chart work for 10 minutes at the end of the day, the total time spent is 35 minutes, not 40 minutes, as you cannot count the time you and the PA spent together twice.

Decisions, Decisions

Evaluation and management coding also can be determined via the level of medical decision-making (MDM). Per the 2021 guidelines, MDM is comprised of 3 categories: (1) number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter, (2) amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed or analyzed, and (3) risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management.¹ To reach a certain overall E/M level, 2 of 3 categories must be met or exceeded. Let’s dive into each of these in a little more detail.

Number and Complexity of Problems Addressed at the Encounter
First, it is important to understand the definition of a problem addressed. Per AMA guidelines, this includes a disease, condition, illness, injury, symptom, sign, finding, complaint, or other matter addressed at the encounter that is evaluated or treated at the encounter by the physician. If the problem is referred to another provider without evaluation or consideration of treatment, it is not considered to be a problem addressed and cannot count toward this first category. An example could be a patient with a lump on the abdomen that you refer to plastic or general surgery for evaluation and treatment.

Once you have determined that you are addressing a problem, you will need to determine the level of complexity of the problem, as outlined in Table 2. Keep in mind that some entities and disease states in dermatology may fit the requirements of more than 1 level of complexity depending on the clinical situation, while there are many entities in dermatology that may not be perfectly captured by any of the levels described. In these situations, clinical judgement is required to determine where the problem would best fit. Importantly, whatever you decide, your documentation should support that decision.

Putting It All Together

Once you have determined each of the above 3 categories, you can put them together into the MDM chart to ascertain the overall level of MDM. (The official AMA medical decision-making grid is available online [https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf]). Keep in mind that 2 of 3 columns in the table must be obtained in that level to reach an overall E/M level; for example, a visit that addresses 2 self-limited or minor problems (level 3) in which no data is reviewed (level 2) and involves prescribing a new medication (level 4), would be an overall level 3 visit.

Final Thoughts

The outpatient E/M guidelines have undergone substantial revisions; therefore, it is crucial to understand the updated definitions to ensure proper billing and documentation. History and physical examination documentation must be medically appropriate but are no longer used to determine overall E/M level; time and MDM are the sole options that can be used. Importantly, try to code as accurately as possible, documenting which problems were both noted and addressed. If you are unsure of a definition within the updated changes and MDM table, referencing the appropriate sources for guidance is recommended.

Although representing a considerable shift, the revaluation of this family of codes and the intended decrease in documentation burden has the ability to be a positive gain for dermatologists. Expect other code families to mirror these changes in the next few years.

Effective on January 1, 2021, the outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes underwent substantial changes, which were the culmination of multiple years of revision and surveying via the American Medical Association (AMA) Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Current Procedural Terminology (RUC-CPT) process to streamline definitions and promote consistency as well as to decrease the administrative burden for all specialties within the house of medicine.¹ These updates represent a notable change from the previous documentation requirements for this oft used family of codes. Herein, we break down some of the highlights of the changes and how they may be applied for some commonly used dermatologic diagnoses.

Time Is Time Is Time

Prior to the 2021 revisions, a physician generally could only code for an E/M level by time for a face-to-face encounter dominated by counseling and/or care coordination. With the new updates, any encounter can be coded by total time spent by the physician with the patient¹; however, clinical staff time is not included. There also are now clear guidelines of the time ranges corresponding to the level of E/M,¹ as noted in Table 1.

Importantly, time now includes not just face-to-face time with the patient but also any time on the date of the encounter that the physician is involved in the care of the patient when not reported with a separate code. This can include reviewing notes or data before or after the examination, care coordination, ordering laboratory tests, and providing any documentation related to the encounter. Importantly, this applies only when these activities are done on the date of the encounter.

If you work with a nurse practitioner or physician assistant (PA) who assists you and you are the one reporting the service, you cannot double-dip. For example, if your PA spends 10 minutes alone with a patient, you are in the room together for 5 minutes, the PA spends another 10 minutes alone with the patient afterward, and you do chart work for 10 minutes at the end of the day, the total time spent is 35 minutes, not 40 minutes, as you cannot count the time you and the PA spent together twice.

Decisions, Decisions

Evaluation and management coding also can be determined via the level of medical decision-making (MDM). Per the 2021 guidelines, MDM is comprised of 3 categories: (1) number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter, (2) amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed or analyzed, and (3) risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management.¹ To reach a certain overall E/M level, 2 of 3 categories must be met or exceeded. Let’s dive into each of these in a little more detail.

Number and Complexity of Problems Addressed at the Encounter
First, it is important to understand the definition of a problem addressed. Per AMA guidelines, this includes a disease, condition, illness, injury, symptom, sign, finding, complaint, or other matter addressed at the encounter that is evaluated or treated at the encounter by the physician. If the problem is referred to another provider without evaluation or consideration of treatment, it is not considered to be a problem addressed and cannot count toward this first category. An example could be a patient with a lump on the abdomen that you refer to plastic or general surgery for evaluation and treatment.

Once you have determined that you are addressing a problem, you will need to determine the level of complexity of the problem, as outlined in Table 2. Keep in mind that some entities and disease states in dermatology may fit the requirements of more than 1 level of complexity depending on the clinical situation, while there are many entities in dermatology that may not be perfectly captured by any of the levels described. In these situations, clinical judgement is required to determine where the problem would best fit. Importantly, whatever you decide, your documentation should support that decision.

Putting It All Together

Once you have determined each of the above 3 categories, you can put them together into the MDM chart to ascertain the overall level of MDM. (The official AMA medical decision-making grid is available online [https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf]). Keep in mind that 2 of 3 columns in the table must be obtained in that level to reach an overall E/M level; for example, a visit that addresses 2 self-limited or minor problems (level 3) in which no data is reviewed (level 2) and involves prescribing a new medication (level 4), would be an overall level 3 visit.

Final Thoughts

The outpatient E/M guidelines have undergone substantial revisions; therefore, it is crucial to understand the updated definitions to ensure proper billing and documentation. History and physical examination documentation must be medically appropriate but are no longer used to determine overall E/M level; time and MDM are the sole options that can be used. Importantly, try to code as accurately as possible, documenting which problems were both noted and addressed. If you are unsure of a definition within the updated changes and MDM table, referencing the appropriate sources for guidance is recommended.

Although representing a considerable shift, the revaluation of this family of codes and the intended decrease in documentation burden has the ability to be a positive gain for dermatologists. Expect other code families to mirror these changes in the next few years.

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

Case Report

A 67-year-old woman presented with a painful expanding ulcer on the left leg and a new nearby ulcer of 2 months’ duration. She initially was seen 2 months prior for a wound on the left knee due to a fall as well as cellulitis, which was treated with intravenous vancomycin and ceftriaxone. Wound cultures were negative for bacteria, and she was discharged without antibiotics. She presented to the emergency department 1 month later for malodorous discharge of the first ulcer with zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria; no fever; and no abnormal heart rate, respiratory rate, or leukocyte count. She was discharged with wound care. After 3 weeks, she returned with a second ulcer and worsening drainage but zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. She had a medical history of Crohn disease with 9-year remission, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, mitral valve replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a 51 pack-year smoking history.

Physical examination of the left leg revealed a 3×3-cm deep lesion (ulcer A) on the distal left thigh located superomedial to the knee (Figure 1) as well as a 2×1-cm deep lesion (ulcer B) on the anteromedial knee with undermining and tunneling (Figure 2). A large amount of malodorous tan bloody discharge was present on both ulcers. There were no signs of induration or crepitus.Due to concerns of skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or osteomyelitis, a bone scan and wound and blood cultures were ordered. The patient was started on vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in the emergency department, which later was augmented with cefepime. Trauma surgery scheduled debridement for the following morning with suspicion of necrotizing fasciitis. Additional consultations were requested, including infectious disease, wound care, and dermatology. Dermatology evaluated the wound, performed a punch biopsy, and canceled debridement due to unclear diagnosis. The clinical differential at that time included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), atypical vasculitis, or infection. Additional workup revealed positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies but negative proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase, disfavoring vasculitis. Wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comment

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition that classically presents as tender papules or pustules evolving into painful ulcers, most commonly on the lower extremities. Pyoderma gangrenosum has a propensity to exhibit pathergy, the hyperreactivity of the skin in response to minor trauma. This phenomenon in PG manifests as the rapid evolution from pustule to ulceration with violaceous undermining borders.

Diagnosis of PG
Pyoderma gangrenosum has been described as a diagnosis of exclusion, as its findings frequently mimic SSTIs. Important findings to obtain are histology, history, ulcer morphology, and response to treatment.

In 2018, Maverakis et al¹ proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG (Table 1). A diagnosis of PG can be made if the patient meets 1 major criterion and 4 minor criteria. Our case met 0 major criteria and 5 minor criteria: history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); history of pustule ulcerating within 4 days of appearing; peripheral erythema, undermining border, and tenderness at ulceration site; multiple ulcerations, with at least 1 on an anterior lower leg; and decreased ulcer size within 1 month of initiating immunosuppressive medication(s). Although our patient’s biopsy demonstrated a mixed infiltrate, PG was not excluded due to spontaneous resolution at the time of biopsy, emphasizing the need to biopsy subsequent new lesions if neutrophils are not initially seen.¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum frequently is associated with IBD, most often Crohn disease, as seen in our patient.^2-4 Although IBD classically is associated with smoking, studies have yet to conclude if smoking is a predictive factor of PG.⁵ Our patient presented with an initial ulcer that evolved into 2 ulcers, similar to a case of bilateral ulcers.⁶

Management of PG
A gold standard of treatment of PG does not exist, but the goal is to promote wound healing. Patients with limited disease typically can be managed with wound care and topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, though data on efficacy are limited. However, our patient had more extensive disease and needed to be treated with systemic therapy. First-line therapy for extensive disease includes oral prednisone or cyclosporine for patients who cannot tolerate systemic corticosteroids.¹² Second-line and adjunctive therapy options include dapsone, minocycline, methotrexate, and infliximab. Our patient was prescribed a 7-month course of dapsone with outpatient dermatology and demonstrated resolution of both ulcers. Dapsone was tapered from a daily dose of 100 mg to 50 mg to 25 mg to none over the course of 2 to 3 months. Close monitoring with wound care is recommended, and petroleum jelly can be used for dry skin around the lesion for comfort.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of PG is challenging because it relies heavily on clinical signs and often mimics SSTI. Gathering a detailed medical history is critical to make the diagnosis of PG. In a patient with associated features of PG, dermatologic consultation and biopsy of skin lesions should be considered. Physicians should evaluate for suspected PG prior to proceeding with surgical intervention to avoid unnecessary amputation. The diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG are gaining wider acceptance and are a useful tool for clinicians.

Case Report

A 67-year-old woman presented with a painful expanding ulcer on the left leg and a new nearby ulcer of 2 months’ duration. She initially was seen 2 months prior for a wound on the left knee due to a fall as well as cellulitis, which was treated with intravenous vancomycin and ceftriaxone. Wound cultures were negative for bacteria, and she was discharged without antibiotics. She presented to the emergency department 1 month later for malodorous discharge of the first ulcer with zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria; no fever; and no abnormal heart rate, respiratory rate, or leukocyte count. She was discharged with wound care. After 3 weeks, she returned with a second ulcer and worsening drainage but zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. She had a medical history of Crohn disease with 9-year remission, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, mitral valve replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a 51 pack-year smoking history.

Physical examination of the left leg revealed a 3×3-cm deep lesion (ulcer A) on the distal left thigh located superomedial to the knee (Figure 1) as well as a 2×1-cm deep lesion (ulcer B) on the anteromedial knee with undermining and tunneling (Figure 2). A large amount of malodorous tan bloody discharge was present on both ulcers. There were no signs of induration or crepitus.Due to concerns of skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or osteomyelitis, a bone scan and wound and blood cultures were ordered. The patient was started on vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in the emergency department, which later was augmented with cefepime. Trauma surgery scheduled debridement for the following morning with suspicion of necrotizing fasciitis. Additional consultations were requested, including infectious disease, wound care, and dermatology. Dermatology evaluated the wound, performed a punch biopsy, and canceled debridement due to unclear diagnosis. The clinical differential at that time included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), atypical vasculitis, or infection. Additional workup revealed positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies but negative proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase, disfavoring vasculitis. Wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comment

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition that classically presents as tender papules or pustules evolving into painful ulcers, most commonly on the lower extremities. Pyoderma gangrenosum has a propensity to exhibit pathergy, the hyperreactivity of the skin in response to minor trauma. This phenomenon in PG manifests as the rapid evolution from pustule to ulceration with violaceous undermining borders.

Diagnosis of PG
Pyoderma gangrenosum has been described as a diagnosis of exclusion, as its findings frequently mimic SSTIs. Important findings to obtain are histology, history, ulcer morphology, and response to treatment.

In 2018, Maverakis et al¹ proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG (Table 1). A diagnosis of PG can be made if the patient meets 1 major criterion and 4 minor criteria. Our case met 0 major criteria and 5 minor criteria: history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); history of pustule ulcerating within 4 days of appearing; peripheral erythema, undermining border, and tenderness at ulceration site; multiple ulcerations, with at least 1 on an anterior lower leg; and decreased ulcer size within 1 month of initiating immunosuppressive medication(s). Although our patient’s biopsy demonstrated a mixed infiltrate, PG was not excluded due to spontaneous resolution at the time of biopsy, emphasizing the need to biopsy subsequent new lesions if neutrophils are not initially seen.¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum frequently is associated with IBD, most often Crohn disease, as seen in our patient.^2-4 Although IBD classically is associated with smoking, studies have yet to conclude if smoking is a predictive factor of PG.⁵ Our patient presented with an initial ulcer that evolved into 2 ulcers, similar to a case of bilateral ulcers.⁶

Management of PG
A gold standard of treatment of PG does not exist, but the goal is to promote wound healing. Patients with limited disease typically can be managed with wound care and topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, though data on efficacy are limited. However, our patient had more extensive disease and needed to be treated with systemic therapy. First-line therapy for extensive disease includes oral prednisone or cyclosporine for patients who cannot tolerate systemic corticosteroids.¹² Second-line and adjunctive therapy options include dapsone, minocycline, methotrexate, and infliximab. Our patient was prescribed a 7-month course of dapsone with outpatient dermatology and demonstrated resolution of both ulcers. Dapsone was tapered from a daily dose of 100 mg to 50 mg to 25 mg to none over the course of 2 to 3 months. Close monitoring with wound care is recommended, and petroleum jelly can be used for dry skin around the lesion for comfort.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of PG is challenging because it relies heavily on clinical signs and often mimics SSTI. Gathering a detailed medical history is critical to make the diagnosis of PG. In a patient with associated features of PG, dermatologic consultation and biopsy of skin lesions should be considered. Physicians should evaluate for suspected PG prior to proceeding with surgical intervention to avoid unnecessary amputation. The diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG are gaining wider acceptance and are a useful tool for clinicians.

Case Report

A 67-year-old woman presented with a painful expanding ulcer on the left leg and a new nearby ulcer of 2 months’ duration. She initially was seen 2 months prior for a wound on the left knee due to a fall as well as cellulitis, which was treated with intravenous vancomycin and ceftriaxone. Wound cultures were negative for bacteria, and she was discharged without antibiotics. She presented to the emergency department 1 month later for malodorous discharge of the first ulcer with zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria; no fever; and no abnormal heart rate, respiratory rate, or leukocyte count. She was discharged with wound care. After 3 weeks, she returned with a second ulcer and worsening drainage but zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. She had a medical history of Crohn disease with 9-year remission, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, mitral valve replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a 51 pack-year smoking history.

Physical examination of the left leg revealed a 3×3-cm deep lesion (ulcer A) on the distal left thigh located superomedial to the knee (Figure 1) as well as a 2×1-cm deep lesion (ulcer B) on the anteromedial knee with undermining and tunneling (Figure 2). A large amount of malodorous tan bloody discharge was present on both ulcers. There were no signs of induration or crepitus.Due to concerns of skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or osteomyelitis, a bone scan and wound and blood cultures were ordered. The patient was started on vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in the emergency department, which later was augmented with cefepime. Trauma surgery scheduled debridement for the following morning with suspicion of necrotizing fasciitis. Additional consultations were requested, including infectious disease, wound care, and dermatology. Dermatology evaluated the wound, performed a punch biopsy, and canceled debridement due to unclear diagnosis. The clinical differential at that time included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), atypical vasculitis, or infection. Additional workup revealed positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies but negative proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase, disfavoring vasculitis. Wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comment

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition that classically presents as tender papules or pustules evolving into painful ulcers, most commonly on the lower extremities. Pyoderma gangrenosum has a propensity to exhibit pathergy, the hyperreactivity of the skin in response to minor trauma. This phenomenon in PG manifests as the rapid evolution from pustule to ulceration with violaceous undermining borders.

Diagnosis of PG
Pyoderma gangrenosum has been described as a diagnosis of exclusion, as its findings frequently mimic SSTIs. Important findings to obtain are histology, history, ulcer morphology, and response to treatment.

In 2018, Maverakis et al¹ proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG (Table 1). A diagnosis of PG can be made if the patient meets 1 major criterion and 4 minor criteria. Our case met 0 major criteria and 5 minor criteria: history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); history of pustule ulcerating within 4 days of appearing; peripheral erythema, undermining border, and tenderness at ulceration site; multiple ulcerations, with at least 1 on an anterior lower leg; and decreased ulcer size within 1 month of initiating immunosuppressive medication(s). Although our patient’s biopsy demonstrated a mixed infiltrate, PG was not excluded due to spontaneous resolution at the time of biopsy, emphasizing the need to biopsy subsequent new lesions if neutrophils are not initially seen.¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum frequently is associated with IBD, most often Crohn disease, as seen in our patient.^2-4 Although IBD classically is associated with smoking, studies have yet to conclude if smoking is a predictive factor of PG.⁵ Our patient presented with an initial ulcer that evolved into 2 ulcers, similar to a case of bilateral ulcers.⁶

Management of PG
A gold standard of treatment of PG does not exist, but the goal is to promote wound healing. Patients with limited disease typically can be managed with wound care and topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, though data on efficacy are limited. However, our patient had more extensive disease and needed to be treated with systemic therapy. First-line therapy for extensive disease includes oral prednisone or cyclosporine for patients who cannot tolerate systemic corticosteroids.¹² Second-line and adjunctive therapy options include dapsone, minocycline, methotrexate, and infliximab. Our patient was prescribed a 7-month course of dapsone with outpatient dermatology and demonstrated resolution of both ulcers. Dapsone was tapered from a daily dose of 100 mg to 50 mg to 25 mg to none over the course of 2 to 3 months. Close monitoring with wound care is recommended, and petroleum jelly can be used for dry skin around the lesion for comfort.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of PG is challenging because it relies heavily on clinical signs and often mimics SSTI. Gathering a detailed medical history is critical to make the diagnosis of PG. In a patient with associated features of PG, dermatologic consultation and biopsy of skin lesions should be considered. Physicians should evaluate for suspected PG prior to proceeding with surgical intervention to avoid unnecessary amputation. The diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG are gaining wider acceptance and are a useful tool for clinicians.

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

The Diagnosis: Favre-Racouchot Syndrome

Favre-Racouchot syndrome, also known as nodular elastosis with cysts and comedones, is seen in approximately 6% of adults aged 40 to 60 years and predominantly is observed in White males.¹ Typically, patients have a history of prolonged recreational or occupational UV exposure and tobacco use. The diagnosis can be made clinically; no biopsy is necessary. If a biopsy is performed, histologic findings typically consist of notable actinic elastosis, epidermal atrophy, and comedones. The differential diagnosis includes acne comedones, colloid milium, milia, chloracne, and trichoepithelioma.² Associated conditions that have been found concurrently include cutis rhomboidalis nuchae, actinic keratosis, erosive pustular dermatosis, actinic granuloma, and basal and squamous cell carcinomas.²

The pathogenesis, while not fully understood, seems to involve a combination of chronic UV radiation exposure and heavy cigarette smoking that eventually leads to cutaneous atrophy and keratinization of the pilosebaceous follicles as well as the formation of comedones.² Radiation therapy also has been implicated as a possible causative agent of Favre-Racouchot syndrome.¹ Clinically, symmetric distribution of large black comedones over the temporal and periorbital areas is seen surrounded by distinct signs of UV-damaged skin, including wrinkles and atrophic skin.³ Although there seems to be a synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and chronic UV exposure, evidence favors smoking as the major cause of this condition,^4,5 which causes striking visual changes but is a benign process. UV protection and smoking cessation are the most important factors for prevention and limiting progression.

Treatment consists of typical comedonal therapies such as tretinoin or comedone extraction. Procedural options in conjunction with medical therapy include dermabrasion or laser therapy. Newer studies have shown promising results for both CO₂ laser treatment and plasma exeresis.⁶ Plasma exeresis is a noninvasive technique that causes ionization of atmospheric gas between the device and tissue, ultimately causing sublimation of the target tissue.⁷ It is important to carefully evaluate and follow up with these patients due to their history of extensive UV exposure. Both short-term and long-term follow-up is recommended due to high rates of reoccurrence within 10 to 12 months and the dangers of chronic UV exposure– related malignancies.⁶

The Diagnosis: Favre-Racouchot Syndrome

Favre-Racouchot syndrome, also known as nodular elastosis with cysts and comedones, is seen in approximately 6% of adults aged 40 to 60 years and predominantly is observed in White males.¹ Typically, patients have a history of prolonged recreational or occupational UV exposure and tobacco use. The diagnosis can be made clinically; no biopsy is necessary. If a biopsy is performed, histologic findings typically consist of notable actinic elastosis, epidermal atrophy, and comedones. The differential diagnosis includes acne comedones, colloid milium, milia, chloracne, and trichoepithelioma.² Associated conditions that have been found concurrently include cutis rhomboidalis nuchae, actinic keratosis, erosive pustular dermatosis, actinic granuloma, and basal and squamous cell carcinomas.²

The pathogenesis, while not fully understood, seems to involve a combination of chronic UV radiation exposure and heavy cigarette smoking that eventually leads to cutaneous atrophy and keratinization of the pilosebaceous follicles as well as the formation of comedones.² Radiation therapy also has been implicated as a possible causative agent of Favre-Racouchot syndrome.¹ Clinically, symmetric distribution of large black comedones over the temporal and periorbital areas is seen surrounded by distinct signs of UV-damaged skin, including wrinkles and atrophic skin.³ Although there seems to be a synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and chronic UV exposure, evidence favors smoking as the major cause of this condition,^4,5 which causes striking visual changes but is a benign process. UV protection and smoking cessation are the most important factors for prevention and limiting progression.

Treatment consists of typical comedonal therapies such as tretinoin or comedone extraction. Procedural options in conjunction with medical therapy include dermabrasion or laser therapy. Newer studies have shown promising results for both CO₂ laser treatment and plasma exeresis.⁶ Plasma exeresis is a noninvasive technique that causes ionization of atmospheric gas between the device and tissue, ultimately causing sublimation of the target tissue.⁷ It is important to carefully evaluate and follow up with these patients due to their history of extensive UV exposure. Both short-term and long-term follow-up is recommended due to high rates of reoccurrence within 10 to 12 months and the dangers of chronic UV exposure– related malignancies.⁶

The Diagnosis: Favre-Racouchot Syndrome

Favre-Racouchot syndrome, also known as nodular elastosis with cysts and comedones, is seen in approximately 6% of adults aged 40 to 60 years and predominantly is observed in White males.¹ Typically, patients have a history of prolonged recreational or occupational UV exposure and tobacco use. The diagnosis can be made clinically; no biopsy is necessary. If a biopsy is performed, histologic findings typically consist of notable actinic elastosis, epidermal atrophy, and comedones. The differential diagnosis includes acne comedones, colloid milium, milia, chloracne, and trichoepithelioma.² Associated conditions that have been found concurrently include cutis rhomboidalis nuchae, actinic keratosis, erosive pustular dermatosis, actinic granuloma, and basal and squamous cell carcinomas.²

The pathogenesis, while not fully understood, seems to involve a combination of chronic UV radiation exposure and heavy cigarette smoking that eventually leads to cutaneous atrophy and keratinization of the pilosebaceous follicles as well as the formation of comedones.² Radiation therapy also has been implicated as a possible causative agent of Favre-Racouchot syndrome.¹ Clinically, symmetric distribution of large black comedones over the temporal and periorbital areas is seen surrounded by distinct signs of UV-damaged skin, including wrinkles and atrophic skin.³ Although there seems to be a synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and chronic UV exposure, evidence favors smoking as the major cause of this condition,^4,5 which causes striking visual changes but is a benign process. UV protection and smoking cessation are the most important factors for prevention and limiting progression.

Treatment consists of typical comedonal therapies such as tretinoin or comedone extraction. Procedural options in conjunction with medical therapy include dermabrasion or laser therapy. Newer studies have shown promising results for both CO₂ laser treatment and plasma exeresis.⁶ Plasma exeresis is a noninvasive technique that causes ionization of atmospheric gas between the device and tissue, ultimately causing sublimation of the target tissue.⁷ It is important to carefully evaluate and follow up with these patients due to their history of extensive UV exposure. Both short-term and long-term follow-up is recommended due to high rates of reoccurrence within 10 to 12 months and the dangers of chronic UV exposure– related malignancies.⁶

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) has included more drugs and data and is moving toward a slightly more stepped approach to treating some forms of psoriatic disease in the latest iteration of their recommendations.

“There’s been an explosion over the last few years in terms of the number of medications,” available to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview ahead of presenting the draft recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The good thing about having more drugs is you’ve got more choice, but actually it makes these recommendations even more important because it becomes more complicated to choose optimal treatment for individuals,” added Dr. Coates, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford (England).

“We’ve been waiting for a while now for the new GRAPPA recommendations,” Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, of Sorbonne University and Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, said in a separate interview.

New overarching principle and position statements

The goal of the recommendations hasn’t really changed since the first iteration of the guidelines in 2009, Dr. Coates noted in her presentation. They are intended to provide clinicians with recommendations “based on the best available evidence” for the management of patients with psoriatic disease.

To that end, a through process was followed, starting with the setting of PICO (Patient/population/problem; intervention; comparison; outcome) questions followed by systematic literature searches, data extraction, and review that assess the quality of evidence and then grade it accordingly before using it to inform the recommendation statements.

There is a new overarching principle that says: “These recommendations, which include the most current data concerning the optimal assessment of and therapeutic approached to psoriatic arthritis, present contextual considerations to empower shared decision making.”

The other overarching principles remain the same as in the 2015 version, with “minor wording changes particularly around the comorbidities overarching principle,” Dr. Coates said.

Also new are two position statements. “One of them is specifically around biosimilars, because that’s been a big shift since 2015,” Dr. Coates said. “It has basic rules about what evidence there should be, what we should consider when we’re using them, and patient involvement and decision making.”

The second statement covers “similar advice on tapering or discontinuing therapy – what we do when people are doing really well, how we should stop or taper, and which drugs we should choose to stop along with shared decision making with patients.”

GRAPPA intentionally gives clinicians more freedom

While there may be data to show differences in efficacy and side effects between the various drugs cited in the recommendations, “GRAPPA makes the choice to not prioritize one drug over another,” Dr. Gossec said. This decision gives “a lot of freedom then to the physician to make the decision.”

One important change according to Dr. Gossec is that oral “NSAIDs have clearly been put back as first-line treatment, before going on to disease-modifying drugs for most of the musculoskeletal manifestations. She added that for skin manifestations, topical NSAIDs were recommended, but that NSAIDs were more recommended for IBD and uveitis of course.

“I feel that’s a big step towards more of a step-up approach,” Dr. Gossec said. “The old recommendations were not clear that you would precede an NSAID before moving on to a disease-modifying drug. So, I think that makes it a little bit more similar to the 2019 EULAR recommendations.” The use of csDMARDs such as methotrexate has also been “pushed up a notch” in peripheral arthritis, she said.

What’s next?

There are a few fine tunings still to be made before the final recommendations are published. They also have to be discussed at the meeting of the GRAPPA task force, which consists of rheumatologists, dermatologists, and patient representatives.

Besides the recommendations manuscript, there will be individual papers detailing the evidence underpinning the recommendations in each of the eight domains, Dr. Coates noted. Those “will look at relative efficacy in detail,” she said. “There will be a lot more discussion/evidence summary included” to help with drug selection.

“We also plan to have some case studies to illustrate how the recommendations can be used, similar to that included in the 2015 recommendations,” she added.

Paul Studenic, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Medical University of Vienna, tweeted that the GRAPPA recommendations showed treatment “needs to be tailored to the patient” taking “comorbidities as well as the heterogeneity of features of the clinical presentation into account.”

He said in an interview: “The third edition of the GRAPPA is a huge collaborative effort.” The new overarching principle put the recommendations in the context of shared decision making and, he added, they emphasize an “integrated management plan taking not only ‘classical’-related manifestations like uveitis into account but [also] a spectrum of comorbidities and reproductive health.”

GRAPPA is a not-for-profit organization and receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Currently this includes AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sun Pharma with Galapagos and Nordic Bioscience as Innovation Partners. Dr. Coates acknowledged receiving research funding, honoraria, speaker fees or all of these from most of the aforementioned companies.

Dr. Gossec has received research funding or other support from numerous pharmaceutical companies and is a member of GRAPPA and the task force that developed the EULAR guidelines on the pharmacological management of psoriatic arthritis.

Dr. Studenic had nothing to disclose.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) has included more drugs and data and is moving toward a slightly more stepped approach to treating some forms of psoriatic disease in the latest iteration of their recommendations.

“There’s been an explosion over the last few years in terms of the number of medications,” available to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview ahead of presenting the draft recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The good thing about having more drugs is you’ve got more choice, but actually it makes these recommendations even more important because it becomes more complicated to choose optimal treatment for individuals,” added Dr. Coates, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford (England).

“We’ve been waiting for a while now for the new GRAPPA recommendations,” Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, of Sorbonne University and Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, said in a separate interview.

New overarching principle and position statements

The goal of the recommendations hasn’t really changed since the first iteration of the guidelines in 2009, Dr. Coates noted in her presentation. They are intended to provide clinicians with recommendations “based on the best available evidence” for the management of patients with psoriatic disease.

To that end, a through process was followed, starting with the setting of PICO (Patient/population/problem; intervention; comparison; outcome) questions followed by systematic literature searches, data extraction, and review that assess the quality of evidence and then grade it accordingly before using it to inform the recommendation statements.

There is a new overarching principle that says: “These recommendations, which include the most current data concerning the optimal assessment of and therapeutic approached to psoriatic arthritis, present contextual considerations to empower shared decision making.”

The other overarching principles remain the same as in the 2015 version, with “minor wording changes particularly around the comorbidities overarching principle,” Dr. Coates said.

Also new are two position statements. “One of them is specifically around biosimilars, because that’s been a big shift since 2015,” Dr. Coates said. “It has basic rules about what evidence there should be, what we should consider when we’re using them, and patient involvement and decision making.”

The second statement covers “similar advice on tapering or discontinuing therapy – what we do when people are doing really well, how we should stop or taper, and which drugs we should choose to stop along with shared decision making with patients.”

GRAPPA intentionally gives clinicians more freedom

While there may be data to show differences in efficacy and side effects between the various drugs cited in the recommendations, “GRAPPA makes the choice to not prioritize one drug over another,” Dr. Gossec said. This decision gives “a lot of freedom then to the physician to make the decision.”

One important change according to Dr. Gossec is that oral “NSAIDs have clearly been put back as first-line treatment, before going on to disease-modifying drugs for most of the musculoskeletal manifestations. She added that for skin manifestations, topical NSAIDs were recommended, but that NSAIDs were more recommended for IBD and uveitis of course.

“I feel that’s a big step towards more of a step-up approach,” Dr. Gossec said. “The old recommendations were not clear that you would precede an NSAID before moving on to a disease-modifying drug. So, I think that makes it a little bit more similar to the 2019 EULAR recommendations.” The use of csDMARDs such as methotrexate has also been “pushed up a notch” in peripheral arthritis, she said.

What’s next?

There are a few fine tunings still to be made before the final recommendations are published. They also have to be discussed at the meeting of the GRAPPA task force, which consists of rheumatologists, dermatologists, and patient representatives.

Besides the recommendations manuscript, there will be individual papers detailing the evidence underpinning the recommendations in each of the eight domains, Dr. Coates noted. Those “will look at relative efficacy in detail,” she said. “There will be a lot more discussion/evidence summary included” to help with drug selection.

“We also plan to have some case studies to illustrate how the recommendations can be used, similar to that included in the 2015 recommendations,” she added.

Paul Studenic, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Medical University of Vienna, tweeted that the GRAPPA recommendations showed treatment “needs to be tailored to the patient” taking “comorbidities as well as the heterogeneity of features of the clinical presentation into account.”

He said in an interview: “The third edition of the GRAPPA is a huge collaborative effort.” The new overarching principle put the recommendations in the context of shared decision making and, he added, they emphasize an “integrated management plan taking not only ‘classical’-related manifestations like uveitis into account but [also] a spectrum of comorbidities and reproductive health.”

GRAPPA is a not-for-profit organization and receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Currently this includes AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sun Pharma with Galapagos and Nordic Bioscience as Innovation Partners. Dr. Coates acknowledged receiving research funding, honoraria, speaker fees or all of these from most of the aforementioned companies.

Dr. Gossec has received research funding or other support from numerous pharmaceutical companies and is a member of GRAPPA and the task force that developed the EULAR guidelines on the pharmacological management of psoriatic arthritis.

Dr. Studenic had nothing to disclose.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) has included more drugs and data and is moving toward a slightly more stepped approach to treating some forms of psoriatic disease in the latest iteration of their recommendations.

“There’s been an explosion over the last few years in terms of the number of medications,” available to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview ahead of presenting the draft recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The good thing about having more drugs is you’ve got more choice, but actually it makes these recommendations even more important because it becomes more complicated to choose optimal treatment for individuals,” added Dr. Coates, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford (England).

“We’ve been waiting for a while now for the new GRAPPA recommendations,” Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, of Sorbonne University and Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, said in a separate interview.

New overarching principle and position statements

The goal of the recommendations hasn’t really changed since the first iteration of the guidelines in 2009, Dr. Coates noted in her presentation. They are intended to provide clinicians with recommendations “based on the best available evidence” for the management of patients with psoriatic disease.

To that end, a through process was followed, starting with the setting of PICO (Patient/population/problem; intervention; comparison; outcome) questions followed by systematic literature searches, data extraction, and review that assess the quality of evidence and then grade it accordingly before using it to inform the recommendation statements.

There is a new overarching principle that says: “These recommendations, which include the most current data concerning the optimal assessment of and therapeutic approached to psoriatic arthritis, present contextual considerations to empower shared decision making.”

The other overarching principles remain the same as in the 2015 version, with “minor wording changes particularly around the comorbidities overarching principle,” Dr. Coates said.

Also new are two position statements. “One of them is specifically around biosimilars, because that’s been a big shift since 2015,” Dr. Coates said. “It has basic rules about what evidence there should be, what we should consider when we’re using them, and patient involvement and decision making.”

The second statement covers “similar advice on tapering or discontinuing therapy – what we do when people are doing really well, how we should stop or taper, and which drugs we should choose to stop along with shared decision making with patients.”

GRAPPA intentionally gives clinicians more freedom

While there may be data to show differences in efficacy and side effects between the various drugs cited in the recommendations, “GRAPPA makes the choice to not prioritize one drug over another,” Dr. Gossec said. This decision gives “a lot of freedom then to the physician to make the decision.”

One important change according to Dr. Gossec is that oral “NSAIDs have clearly been put back as first-line treatment, before going on to disease-modifying drugs for most of the musculoskeletal manifestations. She added that for skin manifestations, topical NSAIDs were recommended, but that NSAIDs were more recommended for IBD and uveitis of course.

“I feel that’s a big step towards more of a step-up approach,” Dr. Gossec said. “The old recommendations were not clear that you would precede an NSAID before moving on to a disease-modifying drug. So, I think that makes it a little bit more similar to the 2019 EULAR recommendations.” The use of csDMARDs such as methotrexate has also been “pushed up a notch” in peripheral arthritis, she said.

What’s next?

There are a few fine tunings still to be made before the final recommendations are published. They also have to be discussed at the meeting of the GRAPPA task force, which consists of rheumatologists, dermatologists, and patient representatives.

Besides the recommendations manuscript, there will be individual papers detailing the evidence underpinning the recommendations in each of the eight domains, Dr. Coates noted. Those “will look at relative efficacy in detail,” she said. “There will be a lot more discussion/evidence summary included” to help with drug selection.

“We also plan to have some case studies to illustrate how the recommendations can be used, similar to that included in the 2015 recommendations,” she added.

Paul Studenic, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Medical University of Vienna, tweeted that the GRAPPA recommendations showed treatment “needs to be tailored to the patient” taking “comorbidities as well as the heterogeneity of features of the clinical presentation into account.”

He said in an interview: “The third edition of the GRAPPA is a huge collaborative effort.” The new overarching principle put the recommendations in the context of shared decision making and, he added, they emphasize an “integrated management plan taking not only ‘classical’-related manifestations like uveitis into account but [also] a spectrum of comorbidities and reproductive health.”

GRAPPA is a not-for-profit organization and receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Currently this includes AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sun Pharma with Galapagos and Nordic Bioscience as Innovation Partners. Dr. Coates acknowledged receiving research funding, honoraria, speaker fees or all of these from most of the aforementioned companies.

Dr. Gossec has received research funding or other support from numerous pharmaceutical companies and is a member of GRAPPA and the task force that developed the EULAR guidelines on the pharmacological management of psoriatic arthritis.

Dr. Studenic had nothing to disclose.

Communication and relationships cannot be taken for granted, particularly in the physician-patient relationship, where life-altering diagnoses may be given. With one diagnosis, someone’s life may be changed, and both physicians and patients need to be cognizant of the importance of a strong relationship and clear communication.

In the current US health care system, both physicians and patients often are not getting their needs met, and studies that include factors of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status suggest that physician-patient relationship barriers contribute to racial disparities in health care.^1,2 Although patient-centered care is a widely recognized and upheld model, relationship-centered care between physician and patient involves focusing on the patient and the physician-patient relationship through recognizing personhood, affect (being empathic), and reciprocal influence.^3,4 Although it is not necessarily intuitive because it can appear to be yet another task for busy physicians, relationship-centered care improves health care delivery for both physicians and patients through decreased physician burnout, reduced medical errors, and better patient outcomes and satisfaction.^5,6

Every physician, patient, and physician-patient relationship is different; unlike the standard questions directed at a routine patient history focused on gathering data, there is no one-size-fits-all relationship-centered conversation.^7-10 As with any successful interaction between 2 people, there is a certain amount of necessary self-awareness (Table 1)¹¹ that allows for improvisation and appropriate responsiveness to what is seen, heard, and felt. Rather than attending solely to disease states, the focus of relationship-centered care is on patients, interpersonal interaction, and promoting health and well-being.¹⁵

This review summarizes the existing literature on relationship-centered care, introduces the use of metacognition (Table 1), and suggests creating simple habits to promote such care. The following databases were searched from inception through November 23, 2020, using the term relationship-centered care: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), and ERIC (ProQuest). A total of 1772 records were retrieved through searches, and after deduplication of 1116 studies, 350 records were screened through a 2-part process. Articles were first screened by title and abstract for relevance to the relationship between physician and patient, with 185 studies deemed irrelevant (eg, pertaining to the relationship of veterinarian to animal). The remaining 165 studies were assessed for eligibility, with 69 further studies excluded for various reasons. The screening process resulted in 96 articles considered in this review.

Definitions/key terms, as used in this article, are listed in Table 1.

Background of Relationship-Centered Care

Given time constraints, the diagnosis and treatment of medical problems often are the focus of physicians. Although proper medical diagnosis and treatment are important, and their delivery is made possible by the physician having the appropriate knowledge, a physician-patient relationship that focuses solely on disease without acknowledging the patient creates a system that ultimately neglects both patients and physicians.¹⁵ This prevailing physician-patient relationship paradigm is suboptimal, and a proposed remedy is relationship-centered care, which focuses on relationships among the human beings in health care interactions.³ Relationship-centered care has 4 principles: (1) the personhood of each party must be recognized, (2) emotion is part of relationships, (3) relationships are reciprocal and not just one way, and (4) creating these types of relationships is morally valuable³ and beneficial to patient care.¹⁶

Assessment of the Need for Relationship-Centered Care

Relationship-centered care has been studied in physician-patient interactions in various health care settings.^17-23 For at least 2 decades, relationship-centered care has been set forth as a model,^4,24,25 but there are challenges. Physicians tend to overrate or underrate their communication skills in patient interactions.^26,27 A given physician’s preferences often still seem to supersede those of the patient.^3,28,29 The impetus to develop relationship-centered care skills generally needs to be internally driven,^4,30 as, ultimately, physicians and patients have varying needs.^4,31 However, providing physicians with a potential structure is helpful.³²

A Solution: Metacognition in the Physician-Patient Interaction

Metacognition is important to integrating basic science knowledge into medical learning and practice,^33,34 and it is no less important in translating interpersonal knowledge to the physician-patient interaction. Decreased metacognitive effort³⁵ may underpin the decline in empathy seen with increasing medical training.^36,37 Understanding how metacognitive practices foster relationship-centered care is important for teaching, developing, and maintaining that care.

Metacognition is already embedded in the fabric of the physician-patient interaction.^33,34 The complex interplay of the physician-patient interview, patient examination, and integration of physical as well as ancillary data requires higher-order thinking and the ability to parse out that thinking successfully. As a concrete example, coming to a diagnosis requires thinking about what has been presented during the physician-patient interaction and considering what supports and suggests the disease while a list of potential differential diagnosis alternatives is being generated. Physicians are trained to apply this clinical reasoning approach to their patient care.

Conversely, although communication skills are a key component of doctoring,³⁸ both between physician and patient as well as among other colleagues and staff, many physicians have never received formal training in communication skills,^26,32,39 though it is now an integral part of medical school curricula.⁴⁰ When such training is mandatory, less than 1% of physicians continue to believe that there was no benefit, even from a single 8-hour communications skills training session.⁴¹ Communication cannot be taught comprehensively in 8 hours; thus, the benefit of such training may be the end result of metacognition and increased self-awareness (Table 1).^42,43

Building Relationship-Centered Care Through Metacognitive Attention

Metacognition as manifested by such self-awareness can build relationship-centered care.⁴ Self-awareness can be taught through mentorship or role models.⁴⁴ Journaling,⁴⁰ meditation, and appreciation of beauty and the arts⁴⁵ can contribute, as well as more formal training programs,^32,38,42 as offered by the Academy of Communication in Healthcare. Creating opportunities for patient empowerment also supports relationship-centered care, as does applying knowledge of implicit bias.⁴⁶

Even without formal training, relationship-centered care can be built through attention to cues⁹—visual (eg, sitting down, other body language),^47,48 auditory (eg, knocking, language, tone, conversational flow),^48,49 and emotional (eg, clinical empathy, emotional intelligence)(Table 2). Such attention is familiar to everyone, not just physicians or patients, through interactions outside of health care; inattention may be due to the hidden curriculum or culture of medicine⁴⁰ as well as real-time changes, such as the introduction of the electronic health record.⁵¹ Inattention to these cues also may be a result of context-specific knowledge, in which a physician’s real-life communication skills are not applied to the unique context of patient care.

Metacognitive Attention Can Generate Habit

Taking metacognition a step further, these small interventions can become habit^11,14,39 through self-awareness, deliberate practice, and feedback.⁴³ Habit is generated by linking a given intervention to another defined cue. For example, placing a hand on a doorknob to enter an examination room can be the cue to generate a habit of entering with presence.¹⁴ Alternatively, before entering an examination room, taking 3 deep breaths can be the cue to trigger presence.¹⁴ Habits can be created in just 3 weeks,⁵⁷ and other proposed cues to generate habits toward relationship-centered care are listed in Table 2. By creating habit through metacognitive attention, relationship-centered care will become something that happens subconsciously without further burdening physicians with another task. Asking patients for permission to record video of an interaction also can create opportunities for self-awareness and self-evaluation through rewatching the video.⁵⁸

Final Thoughts

Physicians already have the tools to create relationship-centered care in physician-patient interactions. A critical mental shift is to develop habits and apply thinking patterns toward understanding and responding appropriately to patients of all ethnicities and their emotions in the physician-patient interaction. This shift is aided by metacognitive awareness (Table 1) and the development of useful habits (Table 2).

Communication and relationships cannot be taken for granted, particularly in the physician-patient relationship, where life-altering diagnoses may be given. With one diagnosis, someone’s life may be changed, and both physicians and patients need to be cognizant of the importance of a strong relationship and clear communication.

In the current US health care system, both physicians and patients often are not getting their needs met, and studies that include factors of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status suggest that physician-patient relationship barriers contribute to racial disparities in health care.^1,2 Although patient-centered care is a widely recognized and upheld model, relationship-centered care between physician and patient involves focusing on the patient and the physician-patient relationship through recognizing personhood, affect (being empathic), and reciprocal influence.^3,4 Although it is not necessarily intuitive because it can appear to be yet another task for busy physicians, relationship-centered care improves health care delivery for both physicians and patients through decreased physician burnout, reduced medical errors, and better patient outcomes and satisfaction.^5,6

Every physician, patient, and physician-patient relationship is different; unlike the standard questions directed at a routine patient history focused on gathering data, there is no one-size-fits-all relationship-centered conversation.^7-10 As with any successful interaction between 2 people, there is a certain amount of necessary self-awareness (Table 1)¹¹ that allows for improvisation and appropriate responsiveness to what is seen, heard, and felt. Rather than attending solely to disease states, the focus of relationship-centered care is on patients, interpersonal interaction, and promoting health and well-being.¹⁵

This review summarizes the existing literature on relationship-centered care, introduces the use of metacognition (Table 1), and suggests creating simple habits to promote such care. The following databases were searched from inception through November 23, 2020, using the term relationship-centered care: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), and ERIC (ProQuest). A total of 1772 records were retrieved through searches, and after deduplication of 1116 studies, 350 records were screened through a 2-part process. Articles were first screened by title and abstract for relevance to the relationship between physician and patient, with 185 studies deemed irrelevant (eg, pertaining to the relationship of veterinarian to animal). The remaining 165 studies were assessed for eligibility, with 69 further studies excluded for various reasons. The screening process resulted in 96 articles considered in this review.

Definitions/key terms, as used in this article, are listed in Table 1.

Background of Relationship-Centered Care

Given time constraints, the diagnosis and treatment of medical problems often are the focus of physicians. Although proper medical diagnosis and treatment are important, and their delivery is made possible by the physician having the appropriate knowledge, a physician-patient relationship that focuses solely on disease without acknowledging the patient creates a system that ultimately neglects both patients and physicians.¹⁵ This prevailing physician-patient relationship paradigm is suboptimal, and a proposed remedy is relationship-centered care, which focuses on relationships among the human beings in health care interactions.³ Relationship-centered care has 4 principles: (1) the personhood of each party must be recognized, (2) emotion is part of relationships, (3) relationships are reciprocal and not just one way, and (4) creating these types of relationships is morally valuable³ and beneficial to patient care.¹⁶

Assessment of the Need for Relationship-Centered Care

Relationship-centered care has been studied in physician-patient interactions in various health care settings.^17-23 For at least 2 decades, relationship-centered care has been set forth as a model,^4,24,25 but there are challenges. Physicians tend to overrate or underrate their communication skills in patient interactions.^26,27 A given physician’s preferences often still seem to supersede those of the patient.^3,28,29 The impetus to develop relationship-centered care skills generally needs to be internally driven,^4,30 as, ultimately, physicians and patients have varying needs.^4,31 However, providing physicians with a potential structure is helpful.³²

A Solution: Metacognition in the Physician-Patient Interaction

Metacognition is important to integrating basic science knowledge into medical learning and practice,^33,34 and it is no less important in translating interpersonal knowledge to the physician-patient interaction. Decreased metacognitive effort³⁵ may underpin the decline in empathy seen with increasing medical training.^36,37 Understanding how metacognitive practices foster relationship-centered care is important for teaching, developing, and maintaining that care.

Metacognition is already embedded in the fabric of the physician-patient interaction.^33,34 The complex interplay of the physician-patient interview, patient examination, and integration of physical as well as ancillary data requires higher-order thinking and the ability to parse out that thinking successfully. As a concrete example, coming to a diagnosis requires thinking about what has been presented during the physician-patient interaction and considering what supports and suggests the disease while a list of potential differential diagnosis alternatives is being generated. Physicians are trained to apply this clinical reasoning approach to their patient care.

Conversely, although communication skills are a key component of doctoring,³⁸ both between physician and patient as well as among other colleagues and staff, many physicians have never received formal training in communication skills,^26,32,39 though it is now an integral part of medical school curricula.⁴⁰ When such training is mandatory, less than 1% of physicians continue to believe that there was no benefit, even from a single 8-hour communications skills training session.⁴¹ Communication cannot be taught comprehensively in 8 hours; thus, the benefit of such training may be the end result of metacognition and increased self-awareness (Table 1).^42,43

Building Relationship-Centered Care Through Metacognitive Attention

Metacognition as manifested by such self-awareness can build relationship-centered care.⁴ Self-awareness can be taught through mentorship or role models.⁴⁴ Journaling,⁴⁰ meditation, and appreciation of beauty and the arts⁴⁵ can contribute, as well as more formal training programs,^32,38,42 as offered by the Academy of Communication in Healthcare. Creating opportunities for patient empowerment also supports relationship-centered care, as does applying knowledge of implicit bias.⁴⁶

Even without formal training, relationship-centered care can be built through attention to cues⁹—visual (eg, sitting down, other body language),^47,48 auditory (eg, knocking, language, tone, conversational flow),^48,49 and emotional (eg, clinical empathy, emotional intelligence)(Table 2). Such attention is familiar to everyone, not just physicians or patients, through interactions outside of health care; inattention may be due to the hidden curriculum or culture of medicine⁴⁰ as well as real-time changes, such as the introduction of the electronic health record.⁵¹ Inattention to these cues also may be a result of context-specific knowledge, in which a physician’s real-life communication skills are not applied to the unique context of patient care.

Metacognitive Attention Can Generate Habit

Taking metacognition a step further, these small interventions can become habit^11,14,39 through self-awareness, deliberate practice, and feedback.⁴³ Habit is generated by linking a given intervention to another defined cue. For example, placing a hand on a doorknob to enter an examination room can be the cue to generate a habit of entering with presence.¹⁴ Alternatively, before entering an examination room, taking 3 deep breaths can be the cue to trigger presence.¹⁴ Habits can be created in just 3 weeks,⁵⁷ and other proposed cues to generate habits toward relationship-centered care are listed in Table 2. By creating habit through metacognitive attention, relationship-centered care will become something that happens subconsciously without further burdening physicians with another task. Asking patients for permission to record video of an interaction also can create opportunities for self-awareness and self-evaluation through rewatching the video.⁵⁸

Final Thoughts

Physicians already have the tools to create relationship-centered care in physician-patient interactions. A critical mental shift is to develop habits and apply thinking patterns toward understanding and responding appropriately to patients of all ethnicities and their emotions in the physician-patient interaction. This shift is aided by metacognitive awareness (Table 1) and the development of useful habits (Table 2).

Communication and relationships cannot be taken for granted, particularly in the physician-patient relationship, where life-altering diagnoses may be given. With one diagnosis, someone’s life may be changed, and both physicians and patients need to be cognizant of the importance of a strong relationship and clear communication.

In the current US health care system, both physicians and patients often are not getting their needs met, and studies that include factors of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status suggest that physician-patient relationship barriers contribute to racial disparities in health care.^1,2 Although patient-centered care is a widely recognized and upheld model, relationship-centered care between physician and patient involves focusing on the patient and the physician-patient relationship through recognizing personhood, affect (being empathic), and reciprocal influence.^3,4 Although it is not necessarily intuitive because it can appear to be yet another task for busy physicians, relationship-centered care improves health care delivery for both physicians and patients through decreased physician burnout, reduced medical errors, and better patient outcomes and satisfaction.^5,6

Every physician, patient, and physician-patient relationship is different; unlike the standard questions directed at a routine patient history focused on gathering data, there is no one-size-fits-all relationship-centered conversation.^7-10 As with any successful interaction between 2 people, there is a certain amount of necessary self-awareness (Table 1)¹¹ that allows for improvisation and appropriate responsiveness to what is seen, heard, and felt. Rather than attending solely to disease states, the focus of relationship-centered care is on patients, interpersonal interaction, and promoting health and well-being.¹⁵

This review summarizes the existing literature on relationship-centered care, introduces the use of metacognition (Table 1), and suggests creating simple habits to promote such care. The following databases were searched from inception through November 23, 2020, using the term relationship-centered care: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), and ERIC (ProQuest). A total of 1772 records were retrieved through searches, and after deduplication of 1116 studies, 350 records were screened through a 2-part process. Articles were first screened by title and abstract for relevance to the relationship between physician and patient, with 185 studies deemed irrelevant (eg, pertaining to the relationship of veterinarian to animal). The remaining 165 studies were assessed for eligibility, with 69 further studies excluded for various reasons. The screening process resulted in 96 articles considered in this review.

Definitions/key terms, as used in this article, are listed in Table 1.

Background of Relationship-Centered Care

Given time constraints, the diagnosis and treatment of medical problems often are the focus of physicians. Although proper medical diagnosis and treatment are important, and their delivery is made possible by the physician having the appropriate knowledge, a physician-patient relationship that focuses solely on disease without acknowledging the patient creates a system that ultimately neglects both patients and physicians.¹⁵ This prevailing physician-patient relationship paradigm is suboptimal, and a proposed remedy is relationship-centered care, which focuses on relationships among the human beings in health care interactions.³ Relationship-centered care has 4 principles: (1) the personhood of each party must be recognized, (2) emotion is part of relationships, (3) relationships are reciprocal and not just one way, and (4) creating these types of relationships is morally valuable³ and beneficial to patient care.¹⁶

Assessment of the Need for Relationship-Centered Care

Relationship-centered care has been studied in physician-patient interactions in various health care settings.^17-23 For at least 2 decades, relationship-centered care has been set forth as a model,^4,24,25 but there are challenges. Physicians tend to overrate or underrate their communication skills in patient interactions.^26,27 A given physician’s preferences often still seem to supersede those of the patient.^3,28,29 The impetus to develop relationship-centered care skills generally needs to be internally driven,^4,30 as, ultimately, physicians and patients have varying needs.^4,31 However, providing physicians with a potential structure is helpful.³²

A Solution: Metacognition in the Physician-Patient Interaction

Metacognition is important to integrating basic science knowledge into medical learning and practice,^33,34 and it is no less important in translating interpersonal knowledge to the physician-patient interaction. Decreased metacognitive effort³⁵ may underpin the decline in empathy seen with increasing medical training.^36,37 Understanding how metacognitive practices foster relationship-centered care is important for teaching, developing, and maintaining that care.

Metacognition is already embedded in the fabric of the physician-patient interaction.^33,34 The complex interplay of the physician-patient interview, patient examination, and integration of physical as well as ancillary data requires higher-order thinking and the ability to parse out that thinking successfully. As a concrete example, coming to a diagnosis requires thinking about what has been presented during the physician-patient interaction and considering what supports and suggests the disease while a list of potential differential diagnosis alternatives is being generated. Physicians are trained to apply this clinical reasoning approach to their patient care.

Conversely, although communication skills are a key component of doctoring,³⁸ both between physician and patient as well as among other colleagues and staff, many physicians have never received formal training in communication skills,^26,32,39 though it is now an integral part of medical school curricula.⁴⁰ When such training is mandatory, less than 1% of physicians continue to believe that there was no benefit, even from a single 8-hour communications skills training session.⁴¹ Communication cannot be taught comprehensively in 8 hours; thus, the benefit of such training may be the end result of metacognition and increased self-awareness (Table 1).^42,43

Building Relationship-Centered Care Through Metacognitive Attention

Metacognition as manifested by such self-awareness can build relationship-centered care.⁴ Self-awareness can be taught through mentorship or role models.⁴⁴ Journaling,⁴⁰ meditation, and appreciation of beauty and the arts⁴⁵ can contribute, as well as more formal training programs,^32,38,42 as offered by the Academy of Communication in Healthcare. Creating opportunities for patient empowerment also supports relationship-centered care, as does applying knowledge of implicit bias.⁴⁶

Even without formal training, relationship-centered care can be built through attention to cues⁹—visual (eg, sitting down, other body language),^47,48 auditory (eg, knocking, language, tone, conversational flow),^48,49 and emotional (eg, clinical empathy, emotional intelligence)(Table 2). Such attention is familiar to everyone, not just physicians or patients, through interactions outside of health care; inattention may be due to the hidden curriculum or culture of medicine⁴⁰ as well as real-time changes, such as the introduction of the electronic health record.⁵¹ Inattention to these cues also may be a result of context-specific knowledge, in which a physician’s real-life communication skills are not applied to the unique context of patient care.

Metacognitive Attention Can Generate Habit

Taking metacognition a step further, these small interventions can become habit^11,14,39 through self-awareness, deliberate practice, and feedback.⁴³ Habit is generated by linking a given intervention to another defined cue. For example, placing a hand on a doorknob to enter an examination room can be the cue to generate a habit of entering with presence.¹⁴ Alternatively, before entering an examination room, taking 3 deep breaths can be the cue to trigger presence.¹⁴ Habits can be created in just 3 weeks,⁵⁷ and other proposed cues to generate habits toward relationship-centered care are listed in Table 2. By creating habit through metacognitive attention, relationship-centered care will become something that happens subconsciously without further burdening physicians with another task. Asking patients for permission to record video of an interaction also can create opportunities for self-awareness and self-evaluation through rewatching the video.⁵⁸

Final Thoughts

Physicians already have the tools to create relationship-centered care in physician-patient interactions. A critical mental shift is to develop habits and apply thinking patterns toward understanding and responding appropriately to patients of all ethnicities and their emotions in the physician-patient interaction. This shift is aided by metacognitive awareness (Table 1) and the development of useful habits (Table 2).

With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).

Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.

Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.

“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
 

High rates of depression, suicide

She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.

One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).

As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:

• Include only when they result in impairment.
• Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
• Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
• Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.

The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.

Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.

The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”

But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
 

Time to remove stigma

Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or ­– the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”

Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.

Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”

Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).

Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.

Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.

“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
 

High rates of depression, suicide

She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.

One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).

As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:

• Include only when they result in impairment.
• Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
• Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
• Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.

The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.

Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.

The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”

But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
 

Time to remove stigma

Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or ­– the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”

Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.

Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”

Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).

Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.

Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.

“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
 

High rates of depression, suicide

She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.

One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).

As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:

• Include only when they result in impairment.
• Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
• Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
• Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.

The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.

Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.

The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”

But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
 

Time to remove stigma

Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or ­– the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”

Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.

Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”

Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Using belimumab after rituximab to treat patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) refractory to conventional therapy not only significantly decreased levels of serum IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels but also prolonged the time before severe flares of disease occurred in the phase 2b BEAT-LUPUS (Belimumab after B cell depletion in SLE) study.

The trial’s primary outcome of serum IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels showed a decline from a geometric mean of 162 IU/mL at baseline to 69 IU/mL at 24 weeks and 47 IU/mL at 1 year in patients treated with belimumab (Benlysta) after rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars). These reductions were significantly lower than the values seen in the placebo after rituximab arm (a respective 121 IU/mL, 99 IU/mL, and 103 IU/mL; P < .001).

Just 3 patients who received belimumab versus 10 who received placebo after rituximab experienced a severe BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index A flare by the end of the study at 52 weeks. The hazard ratio (HR) for the flare reduction was 0.27 (P = .03), indicating a 73% reduction.

The use of belimumab rather than a placebo also led to a small reduction in total serum IgG, and significantly suppressed B-cell repopulation (P = .03).

These results need confirming in a larger, phase 3 trial, the trial’s principal investigator, Michael Ehrenstein, PhD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. They are “clearly encouraging” and “support the hypothesis that BAFF [B-cell–activating factor] can drive flares after rituximab,” he said.

Although B-cell depletion with rituximab is recommended by national and international guidelines to treat some patients with SLE who are refractory to conventional therapy, its use is not licensed.

“Certainly, rituximab is a controversial drug in lupus,” Dr. Ehrenstein, a consultant rheumatologist based at University College London, said in an interview. Although there is real-world evidence from registries and open-label studies suggesting that it is widely used and effective in some patients, the randomized, controlled trials conducted with rituximab about 10 years ago failed to meet their primary endpoints.

“A lot has been written about why that was, but probably the biggest reason was the high dose of steroids in both groups,” Dr. Ehrenstein said. To try to avoid muddying the waters of the BEAT-LUPUS trial findings, the maximum dose of prednisolone allowed to be used as background therapy was 20 mg/day. The trial’s investigators were also encouraged to reduce the baseline steroid dose to at least 50% by the trial’s 6-month halfway point.

“We tried to reflect what was going on in the U.K.,” Dr. Ehrenstein said, noting that the inspiration for the trial was a patient who had received sequential rituximab treatment. Although she got better with each cycle of rituximab, when her disease flared it would be worse than the time before, with increasingly higher anti-dsDNA levels recorded. The reason for this seemed to be because of increasing BAFF levels, and so the hypothesis was that if rituximab was associated with increased BAFF levels, then co-targeting BAFF with belimumab should be able to prevent those flares from happening.

The BEAT-LUPUS trial has been a huge collaborative effort and was conducted across 16 U.K. centers. From initial funding to the data analysis, it has taken 6 years to complete and was made possible by a unique partnership between Versus Arthritis, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, the National Institute for Health Research UK Musculoskeletal Translational Research Collaboration, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK provided belimumab free of charge, as well as additional funding, but had no role in the design of the study and will not have any role going forward.

From an initial 172 patients assessed for eligibility, 52 patients were finally enrolled into the trial and received rituximab as two infusions given 2 weeks apart. Patients were then randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either belimumab (n = 26) or placebo (n = 26) 4-8 weeks after their first dose of rituximab. The intention-to-treat population consisted of 43 patients.

The use of belimumab after rituximab did not increase the risk for infection – serious or otherwise – or adverse effects, Dr. Ehrenstein reported. Serious adverse events were reported in six (23%) patients in each arm, and serious infections were seen in two (8%) of the belimumab- and four (15%) of the placebo-treated patients.

“I think the take-home message is that it seems that belimumab can reduce the number of severe flares that occur after rituximab therapy,” Dr. Ehrenstein said. “It’s promising, but not definitive,” he added. The next step is of course to publish these data and to perform a phase 3 trial.

In the discussion time following the presentation, session moderator Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University, asked why not give belimumab first before rituximab if using belimumab afterward works?

“Our strategy was driven by the observation that BAFF levels surged after rituximab, and therefore it’s logical to give the belimumab to block that BAFF surge,” he answered.

“Certainly, there are ideas that belimumab releases mature B cells into the circulation and rituximab can target that,” he added. That strategy is under investigation in the BLISS-BELIEVE trial, which should also report by the end of this year. It’s a much larger, phase 3 trial, involving nearly 300 patients and is sponsored by GSK.

“Clearly, this is a combination treatment [but] whether you give one before the other is uncertain,” Dr. Ehrenstein observed.

Another member of the viewing audience asked whether it would have been a fairer comparison if another dose of rituximab had been given to patients at week 24 instead of no treatment. Dr. Ehrenstein noted that it was a “good point” to make, but the investigators mainly wanted to answer whether giving belimumab after rituximab would target BAFF and thereby drop serum anti-dsDNA antibody levels. He said that a full trial of rituximab for patients with SLE, perhaps adding this extra dose, needs to be conducted.

Dr. Ehrenstein disclosed receiving research funding and educational grants from GSK and participating in advisory panels for the company.

Using belimumab after rituximab to treat patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) refractory to conventional therapy not only significantly decreased levels of serum IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels but also prolonged the time before severe flares of disease occurred in the phase 2b BEAT-LUPUS (Belimumab after B cell depletion in SLE) study.

The trial’s primary outcome of serum IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels showed a decline from a geometric mean of 162 IU/mL at baseline to 69 IU/mL at 24 weeks and 47 IU/mL at 1 year in patients treated with belimumab (Benlysta) after rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars). These reductions were significantly lower than the values seen in the placebo after rituximab arm (a respective 121 IU/mL, 99 IU/mL, and 103 IU/mL; P < .001).

Just 3 patients who received belimumab versus 10 who received placebo after rituximab experienced a severe BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index A flare by the end of the study at 52 weeks. The hazard ratio (HR) for the flare reduction was 0.27 (P = .03), indicating a 73% reduction.

The use of belimumab rather than a placebo also led to a small reduction in total serum IgG, and significantly suppressed B-cell repopulation (P = .03).

These results need confirming in a larger, phase 3 trial, the trial’s principal investigator, Michael Ehrenstein, PhD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. They are “clearly encouraging” and “support the hypothesis that BAFF [B-cell–activating factor] can drive flares after rituximab,” he said.

Although B-cell depletion with rituximab is recommended by national and international guidelines to treat some patients with SLE who are refractory to conventional therapy, its use is not licensed.

“Certainly, rituximab is a controversial drug in lupus,” Dr. Ehrenstein, a consultant rheumatologist based at University College London, said in an interview. Although there is real-world evidence from registries and open-label studies suggesting that it is widely used and effective in some patients, the randomized, controlled trials conducted with rituximab about 10 years ago failed to meet their primary endpoints.

“A lot has been written about why that was, but probably the biggest reason was the high dose of steroids in both groups,” Dr. Ehrenstein said. To try to avoid muddying the waters of the BEAT-LUPUS trial findings, the maximum dose of prednisolone allowed to be used as background therapy was 20 mg/day. The trial’s investigators were also encouraged to reduce the baseline steroid dose to at least 50% by the trial’s 6-month halfway point.

“We tried to reflect what was going on in the U.K.,” Dr. Ehrenstein said, noting that the inspiration for the trial was a patient who had received sequential rituximab treatment. Although she got better with each cycle of rituximab, when her disease flared it would be worse than the time before, with increasingly higher anti-dsDNA levels recorded. The reason for this seemed to be because of increasing BAFF levels, and so the hypothesis was that if rituximab was associated with increased BAFF levels, then co-targeting BAFF with belimumab should be able to prevent those flares from happening.

The BEAT-LUPUS trial has been a huge collaborative effort and was conducted across 16 U.K. centers. From initial funding to the data analysis, it has taken 6 years to complete and was made possible by a unique partnership between Versus Arthritis, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, the National Institute for Health Research UK Musculoskeletal Translational Research Collaboration, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK provided belimumab free of charge, as well as additional funding, but had no role in the design of the study and will not have any role going forward.

From an initial 172 patients assessed for eligibility, 52 patients were finally enrolled into the trial and received rituximab as two infusions given 2 weeks apart. Patients were then randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either belimumab (n = 26) or placebo (n = 26) 4-8 weeks after their first dose of rituximab. The intention-to-treat population consisted of 43 patients.

The use of belimumab after rituximab did not increase the risk for infection – serious or otherwise – or adverse effects, Dr. Ehrenstein reported. Serious adverse events were reported in six (23%) patients in each arm, and serious infections were seen in two (8%) of the belimumab- and four (15%) of the placebo-treated patients.

“I think the take-home message is that it seems that belimumab can reduce the number of severe flares that occur after rituximab therapy,” Dr. Ehrenstein said. “It’s promising, but not definitive,” he added. The next step is of course to publish these data and to perform a phase 3 trial.

In the discussion time following the presentation, session moderator Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University, asked why not give belimumab first before rituximab if using belimumab afterward works?

“Our strategy was driven by the observation that BAFF levels surged after rituximab, and therefore it’s logical to give the belimumab to block that BAFF surge,” he answered.

“Certainly, there are ideas that belimumab releases mature B cells into the circulation and rituximab can target that,” he added. That strategy is under investigation in the BLISS-BELIEVE trial, which should also report by the end of this year. It’s a much larger, phase 3 trial, involving nearly 300 patients and is sponsored by GSK.

“Clearly, this is a combination treatment [but] whether you give one before the other is uncertain,” Dr. Ehrenstein observed.

Another member of the viewing audience asked whether it would have been a fairer comparison if another dose of rituximab had been given to patients at week 24 instead of no treatment. Dr. Ehrenstein noted that it was a “good point” to make, but the investigators mainly wanted to answer whether giving belimumab after rituximab would target BAFF and thereby drop serum anti-dsDNA antibody levels. He said that a full trial of rituximab for patients with SLE, perhaps adding this extra dose, needs to be conducted.

Dr. Ehrenstein disclosed receiving research funding and educational grants from GSK and participating in advisory panels for the company.

Using belimumab after rituximab to treat patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) refractory to conventional therapy not only significantly decreased levels of serum IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels but also prolonged the time before severe flares of disease occurred in the phase 2b BEAT-LUPUS (Belimumab after B cell depletion in SLE) study.

The trial’s primary outcome of serum IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels showed a decline from a geometric mean of 162 IU/mL at baseline to 69 IU/mL at 24 weeks and 47 IU/mL at 1 year in patients treated with belimumab (Benlysta) after rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars). These reductions were significantly lower than the values seen in the placebo after rituximab arm (a respective 121 IU/mL, 99 IU/mL, and 103 IU/mL; P < .001).

Just 3 patients who received belimumab versus 10 who received placebo after rituximab experienced a severe BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index A flare by the end of the study at 52 weeks. The hazard ratio (HR) for the flare reduction was 0.27 (P = .03), indicating a 73% reduction.

The use of belimumab rather than a placebo also led to a small reduction in total serum IgG, and significantly suppressed B-cell repopulation (P = .03).

These results need confirming in a larger, phase 3 trial, the trial’s principal investigator, Michael Ehrenstein, PhD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. They are “clearly encouraging” and “support the hypothesis that BAFF [B-cell–activating factor] can drive flares after rituximab,” he said.

Although B-cell depletion with rituximab is recommended by national and international guidelines to treat some patients with SLE who are refractory to conventional therapy, its use is not licensed.

“Certainly, rituximab is a controversial drug in lupus,” Dr. Ehrenstein, a consultant rheumatologist based at University College London, said in an interview. Although there is real-world evidence from registries and open-label studies suggesting that it is widely used and effective in some patients, the randomized, controlled trials conducted with rituximab about 10 years ago failed to meet their primary endpoints.

“A lot has been written about why that was, but probably the biggest reason was the high dose of steroids in both groups,” Dr. Ehrenstein said. To try to avoid muddying the waters of the BEAT-LUPUS trial findings, the maximum dose of prednisolone allowed to be used as background therapy was 20 mg/day. The trial’s investigators were also encouraged to reduce the baseline steroid dose to at least 50% by the trial’s 6-month halfway point.

“We tried to reflect what was going on in the U.K.,” Dr. Ehrenstein said, noting that the inspiration for the trial was a patient who had received sequential rituximab treatment. Although she got better with each cycle of rituximab, when her disease flared it would be worse than the time before, with increasingly higher anti-dsDNA levels recorded. The reason for this seemed to be because of increasing BAFF levels, and so the hypothesis was that if rituximab was associated with increased BAFF levels, then co-targeting BAFF with belimumab should be able to prevent those flares from happening.

The BEAT-LUPUS trial has been a huge collaborative effort and was conducted across 16 U.K. centers. From initial funding to the data analysis, it has taken 6 years to complete and was made possible by a unique partnership between Versus Arthritis, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, the National Institute for Health Research UK Musculoskeletal Translational Research Collaboration, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK provided belimumab free of charge, as well as additional funding, but had no role in the design of the study and will not have any role going forward.

From an initial 172 patients assessed for eligibility, 52 patients were finally enrolled into the trial and received rituximab as two infusions given 2 weeks apart. Patients were then randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either belimumab (n = 26) or placebo (n = 26) 4-8 weeks after their first dose of rituximab. The intention-to-treat population consisted of 43 patients.

The use of belimumab after rituximab did not increase the risk for infection – serious or otherwise – or adverse effects, Dr. Ehrenstein reported. Serious adverse events were reported in six (23%) patients in each arm, and serious infections were seen in two (8%) of the belimumab- and four (15%) of the placebo-treated patients.

“I think the take-home message is that it seems that belimumab can reduce the number of severe flares that occur after rituximab therapy,” Dr. Ehrenstein said. “It’s promising, but not definitive,” he added. The next step is of course to publish these data and to perform a phase 3 trial.

In the discussion time following the presentation, session moderator Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University, asked why not give belimumab first before rituximab if using belimumab afterward works?

“Our strategy was driven by the observation that BAFF levels surged after rituximab, and therefore it’s logical to give the belimumab to block that BAFF surge,” he answered.

“Certainly, there are ideas that belimumab releases mature B cells into the circulation and rituximab can target that,” he added. That strategy is under investigation in the BLISS-BELIEVE trial, which should also report by the end of this year. It’s a much larger, phase 3 trial, involving nearly 300 patients and is sponsored by GSK.

“Clearly, this is a combination treatment [but] whether you give one before the other is uncertain,” Dr. Ehrenstein observed.

Another member of the viewing audience asked whether it would have been a fairer comparison if another dose of rituximab had been given to patients at week 24 instead of no treatment. Dr. Ehrenstein noted that it was a “good point” to make, but the investigators mainly wanted to answer whether giving belimumab after rituximab would target BAFF and thereby drop serum anti-dsDNA antibody levels. He said that a full trial of rituximab for patients with SLE, perhaps adding this extra dose, needs to be conducted.

Dr. Ehrenstein disclosed receiving research funding and educational grants from GSK and participating in advisory panels for the company.