MDedge Dermatology

The risk for developing skin cancer can be somewhat attributed to variations in skin pigmentation. Historically, lighter skin pigmentation has been observed in populations living in higher latitudes and darker pigmentation in populations near the equator. Although skin pigmentation is a conglomeration of genetic and environmental factors, anthropologic studies have demonstrated an association of human skin lightening with historic human migratory patterns.¹ It is postulated that migration to latitudes with less UVB light penetration has resulted in a compensatory natural selection of lighter skin types. Furthermore, the driving force behind this migration-associated skin lightening has remained unclear.¹

The need for folate metabolism, vitamin D synthesis, and barrier protection, as well as cultural practices, has been postulated as driving factors for skin pigmentation variation. Synthesis of vitamin D is a UV radiation (UVR)–dependent process and has remained a prominent theoretical driver for the basis of evolutionary skin lightening. Vitamin D can be acquired both exogenously or endogenously via dietary supplementation or sunlight; however, historically it has been obtained through UVB exposure primarily. Once UVB is absorbed by the skin, it catalyzes conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D₃, which is converted to vitamin D in the kidneys.^2,3 It is suggested that lighter skin tones have an advantage over darker skin tones in synthesizing vitamin D at higher latitudes where there is less UVB, thus leading to the adaptation process.1 In this systematic review, we analyzed the evolutionary vitamin D adaptation hypothesis and assessed the validity of evidence supporting this theory in the literature.

Methods

A search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Reviews database was conducted using the terms evolution, vitamin D, and skin to generate articles published from 2010 to 2022 that evaluated the influence of UVR-dependent production of vitamin D on skin pigmentation through historical migration patterns (Figure). Studies were excluded during an initial screening of abstracts followed by full-text assessment if they only had abstracts and if articles were inaccessible for review or in the form of case reports and commentaries.

The following data were extracted from each included study: reference citation, affiliated institutions of authors, author specialties, journal name, year of publication, study period, type of article, type of study, mechanism of adaptation, data concluding or supporting vitamin D as the driver, and data concluding or suggesting against vitamin D as the driver. Data concluding or supporting vitamin D as the driver were recorded from statistically significant results, study conclusions, and direct quotations. Data concluding or suggesting against vitamin D as the driver also were recorded from significant results, study conclusions, and direct quotes. The mechanism of adaptation was based on vitamin D synthesis modulation, melanin upregulation, genetic selections, genetic drift, mating patterns, increased vitamin D sensitivity, interbreeding, and diet.

Studies included in the analysis were placed into 1 of 3 categories: supporting, neutral, and against. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria were used to classify the level of evidence of each article.⁴ Each article’s level of evidence was then graded (Table 1). The SORT grading levels were based on quality and evidence type: level 1 signified good-quality, patient-oriented evidence; level 2 signified limited-quality, patient-oriented evidence; and level 3 signified other evidence.⁴

Results

Article Selection—A total of 229 articles were identified for screening, and 39 studies met inclusion criteria.^1-3,5-40 Systematic and retrospective reviews were the most common types of studies. Genomic analysis/sequencing/genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were the most common methods of analysis. Of these 39 articles, 26 were classified as supporting the evolutionary vitamin D adaptation hypothesis, 10 were classified as neutral, and 3 were classified as against (Table 1). 

Of the articles classified as supporting the vitamin D hypothesis, 13 articles were level 1 evidence, 9 were level 2, and 4 were level 3. Key findings supporting the vitamin D hypothesis included genetic natural selection favoring vitamin D synthesis genes at higher latitudes with lower UVR and the skin lightening that occurred to protect against vitamin D deficiency (Table 1). Specific genes supporting these findings included 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase (DHCR7), vitamin D receptor (VDR), tyrosinase (TYR), tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP1), oculocutaneous albinism type 2 melanosomal transmembrane protein (OCA2), solute carrier family 45 member 2 (SLC45A2), solute carrier family 4 member 5 (SLC24A5), Kit ligand (KITLG), melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), and HECT and RLD domain containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 2 (HERC2)(Table 2).

Comment

The importance of appropriate vitamin D levels is hypothesized as a potent driver in skin lightening because the vitamin is essential for many biochemical processes within the human body. Proper calcification of bones requires activated vitamin D to prevent rickets in childhood. Pelvic deformation in women with rickets can obstruct childbirth in primitive medical environments.¹⁵ This direct reproductive impairment suggests a strong selective pressure for skin lightening in populations that migrated northward to enhance vitamin D synthesis. 

Of the 39 articles that we reviewed, the majority (n=26 [66.7%]) supported the hypothesis that vitamin D synthesis was the main driver behind skin lightening, whereas 3 (7.7%) did not support the hypothesis and 10 (25.6%) were neutral. Other leading theories explaining skin lightening included the idea that enhanced melanogenesis protected against folate degradation; genetic selection for light-skin alleles due to genetic drift; skin lightening being the result of sexual selection; and a combination of factors, including dietary choices, clothing preferences, and skin permeability barriers. 

Articles With Supporting Evidence for the Vitamin D Theory—As Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, migration patterns demonstrated the correlation between distance from the equator and skin pigmentation from natural selection. Individuals with darker skin pigment required higher levels of UVR to synthesize vitamin D. According to Beleza et al,1 as humans migrated to areas of higher latitudes with lower levels of UVR, natural selection favored the development of lighter skin to maximize vitamin D production. Vitamin D is linked to calcium metabolism, and its deficiency can lead to bone malformations and poor immune function.³⁵ Several genes affecting melanogenesis and skin pigment have been found to have geospatial patterns that map to different geographic locations of various populations, indicating how human migration patterns out of Africa created this natural selection for skin lightening. The gene KITLG—associated with lighter skin pigmentation—has been found in high frequencies in both European and East Asian populations and is proposed to have increased in frequency after the migration out of Africa. However, the genes TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 were found at high frequencies only in European populations, and this selection occurred 11,000 to 19,000 years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (15,000–20,000 years ago), demonstrating the selection for European over East Asian characteristics. During this period, seasonal changes increased the risk for vitamin D deficiency and provided an urgency for selection to a lighter skin pigment.¹

The migration of H sapiens to northern latitudes prompted the selection of alleles that would increasevitamin D synthesis to counteract the reduced UV exposure. Genetic analysis studies have found key associations between genes encoding for the metabolism of vitamin D and pigmentation. Among this complex network are the essential downstream enzymes in the melanocortin receptor 1 pathway, including TYR and TYRP1. Forty-six of 960 single-nucleotide polymorphisms located in 29 different genes involved in skin pigmentation that were analyzed in a cohort of 2970 individuals were significantly associated with serum vitamin D levels (P<.05). The exocyst complex component 2 (EXOC2), TYR, and TYRP1 gene variants were shown to have the greatest influence on vitamin D status.⁹ These data reveal how pigment genotypes are predictive of vitamin D levels and the epistatic potential among many genes in this complex network. 

Gene variation plays an important role in vitamin D status when comparing genetic polymorphisms in populations in northern latitudes to African populations. Vitamin D₃ precursor availability is decreased by 7-DHCR catalyzing the precursors substrate to cholesterol. In a study using GWAS, it was found that “variations in DHCR7 may aid vitamin D production by conserving cutaneous 7-DHC levels. A high prevalence of DHCR7 variants were found in European and Northeast Asian populations but not in African populations, suggesting that selection occurred for these DHCR7 mutations in populations who migrated to more northern latitudes.⁵ Multilocus networks have been established between the VDR promotor and skin color genes (Table 2) that exhibit a strong in-Africa vs out-of-Africa frequency pattern. It also has been shown that genetic variation (suggesting a long-term evolutionary inclination) and epigenetic modification (indicative of short-term exposure) of VDR lends support to the vitamin D hypothesis. As latitude decreases, prevalence of VDR FokI (F allele), BsmI (B allele), ApaI (A allele), and TaqI (T allele) also decreases in a linear manner, linking latitude to VDR polymorphisms. Plasma vitamin D levels and photoperiod of conception—UV exposure during the periconceptional period—also were extrapolative of VDR methylation in a study involving 80 participants, where these 2 factors accounted for 17% of variance in methylation.⁶

Other noteworthy genes included HERC2, which has implications in the expression of OCA2 (melanocyte-specific transporter protein), and IRF4, which encodes for an important enzyme in folate-dependent melanin production. In an Australian cross-sectional study that analyzed vitamin D and pigmentation gene polymorphisms in conjunction with plasma vitamin D levels, the most notable rate of vitamin D loss occurred in individuals with the darkest pigmentation HERC2 (AA) genotype.³¹ In contrast, the lightest pigmentation HERC2 (GG) genotypes had increased vitamin D₃ photosynthesis. Interestingly, the lightest interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) TT genotype and the darkest HERC2 AA genotype, rendering the greatest folate loss and largest synthesis of vitamin D₃, were not seen in combination in any of the participants.³⁰ In addition to HERC2, derived alleles from pigment-associated genes SLC24A5*A and SLC45A2*G demonstrated greater frequencies in Europeans (>90%) compared to Africans and East Asians, where the allelic frequencies were either rare or absent.1 This evidence delineates not only the complexity but also the strong relationship between skin pigmentation, latitude, and vitamin D status. The GWAS also have supported this concept. In comparing European populations to African populations, there was a 4-fold increase in the frequencies of “derived alleles of the vitamin D transport protein (GC, rs3755967), the 25(OH)D₃ synthesizing enzyme (CYP2R1, rs10741657), VDR (rs2228570 (commonly known as FokI polymorphism), rs1544410 (Bsm1), and rs731236 (Taq1) and the VDR target genes CYP24A1 (rs17216707), CD14 (rs2569190), and CARD9 (rs4077515).”³²

Articles With Evidence Against the Vitamin D Theory—This review analyzed the level of support for the theory that vitamin D was the main driver for skin lightening. Although most articles supported this theory, there were articles that listed other plausible counterarguments. Jablonski and Chaplin3 suggested that humans living in higher latitudes compensated for increased demand of vitamin D by placing cultural importance on a diet of vitamin D–rich foods and thus would not have experienced decreased vitamin D levels, which we hypothesize were the driver for skin lightening. Elias et al³⁹ argued that initial pigment dilution may have instead served to improve metabolic conservation, as the authors found no evidence of rickets—the sequelae of vitamin D deficiency—in pre–industrial age human fossils. Elias and Williams3⁸ proposed that differences in skin pigment are due to a more intact skin permeability barrier as “a requirement for life in a desiccating terrestrial environment,” which is seen in darker skin tones compared to lighter skin tones and thus can survive better in warmer climates with less risk of infections or dehydration.

Articles With Neutral Evidence for the Vitamin D Theory—Greaves⁴¹ argued against the idea that skin evolved to become lighter to protect against vitamin D deficiency. They proposed that the chimpanzee, which is the human’s most closely related species, had light skin covered by hair, and the loss of this hair led to exposed pale skin that created a need for increased melanin production for protection from UVR. Greaves⁴¹ stated that the MC1R gene (associated with darker pigmentation) was selected for in African populations, and those with pale skin retained their original pigment as they migrated to higher latitudes. Further research has demonstrated that the genetic natural selection for skin pigment is a complex process that involves multiple gene variants found throughout cultures across the globe.

Conclusion

Skin pigmentation has continuously evolved alongside humans. Genetic selection for lighter skin coincides with a favorable selection for genes involved in vitamin D synthesis as humans migrated to northern latitudes, which enabled humans to produce adequate levels of exogenous vitamin D in low-UVR areas and in turn promoted survival. Early humans without access to supplementation or foods rich in vitamin D acquired vitamin D primarily through sunlight. In comparison to modern society, where vitamin D supplementation is accessible and human lifespans are prolonged, lighter skin tone is now a risk factor for malignant cancers of the skin rather than being a protective adaptation. Current sun behavior recommendations conclude that the body’s need for vitamin D is satisfied by UV exposure to the arms, legs, hands, and/or face for only 5 to 30 minutes between 10 am and 4 pm daily without sunscreen.^42-44 Approximately 600 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily is recommended in a typical adult younger than 70 years to avoid deficiency. In adults 70 years and older who are not receiving adequate sunlight exposure, 800 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation is recommended.⁴⁵

The hypothesis that skin lightening primarily was driven by the need for vitamin D can only be partially supported by our review. Studies have shown that there is a corresponding complex network of genes that determines skin pigmentation as well as vitamin D synthesis and conservation. However, there is sufficient evidence that skin lightening is multifactorial in nature, and vitamin D alone may not be the sole driver. The information in this review can be used by health care providers to educate patients on sun protection, given the lesser threat of severe vitamin D deficiency in developed communities today that have access to adequate nutrition and supplementation.

Skin lightening and its coinciding evolutionary drivers are a rather neglected area of research. Due to heterogeneous cohorts and conservative data analysis, GWAS studies run the risk of type II error, yielding a limitation in our data analysis.⁹ Furthermore, the data regarding specific time frames in evolutionary skin lightening as well as the intensity of gene polymorphisms are limited.1 Further studies are needed to determine the interconnectedness of the current skin-lightening theories to identify other important factors that may play a role in the process. Determining the key event can help us better understand skin-adaptation mechanisms and create a framework for understanding the vital process involved in adaptation, survival, and disease manifestation in different patient populations.

The risk for developing skin cancer can be somewhat attributed to variations in skin pigmentation. Historically, lighter skin pigmentation has been observed in populations living in higher latitudes and darker pigmentation in populations near the equator. Although skin pigmentation is a conglomeration of genetic and environmental factors, anthropologic studies have demonstrated an association of human skin lightening with historic human migratory patterns.¹ It is postulated that migration to latitudes with less UVB light penetration has resulted in a compensatory natural selection of lighter skin types. Furthermore, the driving force behind this migration-associated skin lightening has remained unclear.¹

The need for folate metabolism, vitamin D synthesis, and barrier protection, as well as cultural practices, has been postulated as driving factors for skin pigmentation variation. Synthesis of vitamin D is a UV radiation (UVR)–dependent process and has remained a prominent theoretical driver for the basis of evolutionary skin lightening. Vitamin D can be acquired both exogenously or endogenously via dietary supplementation or sunlight; however, historically it has been obtained through UVB exposure primarily. Once UVB is absorbed by the skin, it catalyzes conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D₃, which is converted to vitamin D in the kidneys.^2,3 It is suggested that lighter skin tones have an advantage over darker skin tones in synthesizing vitamin D at higher latitudes where there is less UVB, thus leading to the adaptation process.1 In this systematic review, we analyzed the evolutionary vitamin D adaptation hypothesis and assessed the validity of evidence supporting this theory in the literature.

Methods

A search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Reviews database was conducted using the terms evolution, vitamin D, and skin to generate articles published from 2010 to 2022 that evaluated the influence of UVR-dependent production of vitamin D on skin pigmentation through historical migration patterns (Figure). Studies were excluded during an initial screening of abstracts followed by full-text assessment if they only had abstracts and if articles were inaccessible for review or in the form of case reports and commentaries.

The following data were extracted from each included study: reference citation, affiliated institutions of authors, author specialties, journal name, year of publication, study period, type of article, type of study, mechanism of adaptation, data concluding or supporting vitamin D as the driver, and data concluding or suggesting against vitamin D as the driver. Data concluding or supporting vitamin D as the driver were recorded from statistically significant results, study conclusions, and direct quotations. Data concluding or suggesting against vitamin D as the driver also were recorded from significant results, study conclusions, and direct quotes. The mechanism of adaptation was based on vitamin D synthesis modulation, melanin upregulation, genetic selections, genetic drift, mating patterns, increased vitamin D sensitivity, interbreeding, and diet.

Studies included in the analysis were placed into 1 of 3 categories: supporting, neutral, and against. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria were used to classify the level of evidence of each article.⁴ Each article’s level of evidence was then graded (Table 1). The SORT grading levels were based on quality and evidence type: level 1 signified good-quality, patient-oriented evidence; level 2 signified limited-quality, patient-oriented evidence; and level 3 signified other evidence.⁴

Results

Article Selection—A total of 229 articles were identified for screening, and 39 studies met inclusion criteria.^1-3,5-40 Systematic and retrospective reviews were the most common types of studies. Genomic analysis/sequencing/genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were the most common methods of analysis. Of these 39 articles, 26 were classified as supporting the evolutionary vitamin D adaptation hypothesis, 10 were classified as neutral, and 3 were classified as against (Table 1). 

Of the articles classified as supporting the vitamin D hypothesis, 13 articles were level 1 evidence, 9 were level 2, and 4 were level 3. Key findings supporting the vitamin D hypothesis included genetic natural selection favoring vitamin D synthesis genes at higher latitudes with lower UVR and the skin lightening that occurred to protect against vitamin D deficiency (Table 1). Specific genes supporting these findings included 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase (DHCR7), vitamin D receptor (VDR), tyrosinase (TYR), tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP1), oculocutaneous albinism type 2 melanosomal transmembrane protein (OCA2), solute carrier family 45 member 2 (SLC45A2), solute carrier family 4 member 5 (SLC24A5), Kit ligand (KITLG), melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), and HECT and RLD domain containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 2 (HERC2)(Table 2).

Comment

The importance of appropriate vitamin D levels is hypothesized as a potent driver in skin lightening because the vitamin is essential for many biochemical processes within the human body. Proper calcification of bones requires activated vitamin D to prevent rickets in childhood. Pelvic deformation in women with rickets can obstruct childbirth in primitive medical environments.¹⁵ This direct reproductive impairment suggests a strong selective pressure for skin lightening in populations that migrated northward to enhance vitamin D synthesis. 

Of the 39 articles that we reviewed, the majority (n=26 [66.7%]) supported the hypothesis that vitamin D synthesis was the main driver behind skin lightening, whereas 3 (7.7%) did not support the hypothesis and 10 (25.6%) were neutral. Other leading theories explaining skin lightening included the idea that enhanced melanogenesis protected against folate degradation; genetic selection for light-skin alleles due to genetic drift; skin lightening being the result of sexual selection; and a combination of factors, including dietary choices, clothing preferences, and skin permeability barriers. 

Articles With Supporting Evidence for the Vitamin D Theory—As Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, migration patterns demonstrated the correlation between distance from the equator and skin pigmentation from natural selection. Individuals with darker skin pigment required higher levels of UVR to synthesize vitamin D. According to Beleza et al,1 as humans migrated to areas of higher latitudes with lower levels of UVR, natural selection favored the development of lighter skin to maximize vitamin D production. Vitamin D is linked to calcium metabolism, and its deficiency can lead to bone malformations and poor immune function.³⁵ Several genes affecting melanogenesis and skin pigment have been found to have geospatial patterns that map to different geographic locations of various populations, indicating how human migration patterns out of Africa created this natural selection for skin lightening. The gene KITLG—associated with lighter skin pigmentation—has been found in high frequencies in both European and East Asian populations and is proposed to have increased in frequency after the migration out of Africa. However, the genes TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 were found at high frequencies only in European populations, and this selection occurred 11,000 to 19,000 years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (15,000–20,000 years ago), demonstrating the selection for European over East Asian characteristics. During this period, seasonal changes increased the risk for vitamin D deficiency and provided an urgency for selection to a lighter skin pigment.¹

The migration of H sapiens to northern latitudes prompted the selection of alleles that would increasevitamin D synthesis to counteract the reduced UV exposure. Genetic analysis studies have found key associations between genes encoding for the metabolism of vitamin D and pigmentation. Among this complex network are the essential downstream enzymes in the melanocortin receptor 1 pathway, including TYR and TYRP1. Forty-six of 960 single-nucleotide polymorphisms located in 29 different genes involved in skin pigmentation that were analyzed in a cohort of 2970 individuals were significantly associated with serum vitamin D levels (P<.05). The exocyst complex component 2 (EXOC2), TYR, and TYRP1 gene variants were shown to have the greatest influence on vitamin D status.⁹ These data reveal how pigment genotypes are predictive of vitamin D levels and the epistatic potential among many genes in this complex network. 

Gene variation plays an important role in vitamin D status when comparing genetic polymorphisms in populations in northern latitudes to African populations. Vitamin D₃ precursor availability is decreased by 7-DHCR catalyzing the precursors substrate to cholesterol. In a study using GWAS, it was found that “variations in DHCR7 may aid vitamin D production by conserving cutaneous 7-DHC levels. A high prevalence of DHCR7 variants were found in European and Northeast Asian populations but not in African populations, suggesting that selection occurred for these DHCR7 mutations in populations who migrated to more northern latitudes.⁵ Multilocus networks have been established between the VDR promotor and skin color genes (Table 2) that exhibit a strong in-Africa vs out-of-Africa frequency pattern. It also has been shown that genetic variation (suggesting a long-term evolutionary inclination) and epigenetic modification (indicative of short-term exposure) of VDR lends support to the vitamin D hypothesis. As latitude decreases, prevalence of VDR FokI (F allele), BsmI (B allele), ApaI (A allele), and TaqI (T allele) also decreases in a linear manner, linking latitude to VDR polymorphisms. Plasma vitamin D levels and photoperiod of conception—UV exposure during the periconceptional period—also were extrapolative of VDR methylation in a study involving 80 participants, where these 2 factors accounted for 17% of variance in methylation.⁶

Other noteworthy genes included HERC2, which has implications in the expression of OCA2 (melanocyte-specific transporter protein), and IRF4, which encodes for an important enzyme in folate-dependent melanin production. In an Australian cross-sectional study that analyzed vitamin D and pigmentation gene polymorphisms in conjunction with plasma vitamin D levels, the most notable rate of vitamin D loss occurred in individuals with the darkest pigmentation HERC2 (AA) genotype.³¹ In contrast, the lightest pigmentation HERC2 (GG) genotypes had increased vitamin D₃ photosynthesis. Interestingly, the lightest interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) TT genotype and the darkest HERC2 AA genotype, rendering the greatest folate loss and largest synthesis of vitamin D₃, were not seen in combination in any of the participants.³⁰ In addition to HERC2, derived alleles from pigment-associated genes SLC24A5*A and SLC45A2*G demonstrated greater frequencies in Europeans (>90%) compared to Africans and East Asians, where the allelic frequencies were either rare or absent.1 This evidence delineates not only the complexity but also the strong relationship between skin pigmentation, latitude, and vitamin D status. The GWAS also have supported this concept. In comparing European populations to African populations, there was a 4-fold increase in the frequencies of “derived alleles of the vitamin D transport protein (GC, rs3755967), the 25(OH)D₃ synthesizing enzyme (CYP2R1, rs10741657), VDR (rs2228570 (commonly known as FokI polymorphism), rs1544410 (Bsm1), and rs731236 (Taq1) and the VDR target genes CYP24A1 (rs17216707), CD14 (rs2569190), and CARD9 (rs4077515).”³²

Articles With Evidence Against the Vitamin D Theory—This review analyzed the level of support for the theory that vitamin D was the main driver for skin lightening. Although most articles supported this theory, there were articles that listed other plausible counterarguments. Jablonski and Chaplin3 suggested that humans living in higher latitudes compensated for increased demand of vitamin D by placing cultural importance on a diet of vitamin D–rich foods and thus would not have experienced decreased vitamin D levels, which we hypothesize were the driver for skin lightening. Elias et al³⁹ argued that initial pigment dilution may have instead served to improve metabolic conservation, as the authors found no evidence of rickets—the sequelae of vitamin D deficiency—in pre–industrial age human fossils. Elias and Williams3⁸ proposed that differences in skin pigment are due to a more intact skin permeability barrier as “a requirement for life in a desiccating terrestrial environment,” which is seen in darker skin tones compared to lighter skin tones and thus can survive better in warmer climates with less risk of infections or dehydration.

Articles With Neutral Evidence for the Vitamin D Theory—Greaves⁴¹ argued against the idea that skin evolved to become lighter to protect against vitamin D deficiency. They proposed that the chimpanzee, which is the human’s most closely related species, had light skin covered by hair, and the loss of this hair led to exposed pale skin that created a need for increased melanin production for protection from UVR. Greaves⁴¹ stated that the MC1R gene (associated with darker pigmentation) was selected for in African populations, and those with pale skin retained their original pigment as they migrated to higher latitudes. Further research has demonstrated that the genetic natural selection for skin pigment is a complex process that involves multiple gene variants found throughout cultures across the globe.

Conclusion

Skin pigmentation has continuously evolved alongside humans. Genetic selection for lighter skin coincides with a favorable selection for genes involved in vitamin D synthesis as humans migrated to northern latitudes, which enabled humans to produce adequate levels of exogenous vitamin D in low-UVR areas and in turn promoted survival. Early humans without access to supplementation or foods rich in vitamin D acquired vitamin D primarily through sunlight. In comparison to modern society, where vitamin D supplementation is accessible and human lifespans are prolonged, lighter skin tone is now a risk factor for malignant cancers of the skin rather than being a protective adaptation. Current sun behavior recommendations conclude that the body’s need for vitamin D is satisfied by UV exposure to the arms, legs, hands, and/or face for only 5 to 30 minutes between 10 am and 4 pm daily without sunscreen.^42-44 Approximately 600 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily is recommended in a typical adult younger than 70 years to avoid deficiency. In adults 70 years and older who are not receiving adequate sunlight exposure, 800 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation is recommended.⁴⁵

The hypothesis that skin lightening primarily was driven by the need for vitamin D can only be partially supported by our review. Studies have shown that there is a corresponding complex network of genes that determines skin pigmentation as well as vitamin D synthesis and conservation. However, there is sufficient evidence that skin lightening is multifactorial in nature, and vitamin D alone may not be the sole driver. The information in this review can be used by health care providers to educate patients on sun protection, given the lesser threat of severe vitamin D deficiency in developed communities today that have access to adequate nutrition and supplementation.

Skin lightening and its coinciding evolutionary drivers are a rather neglected area of research. Due to heterogeneous cohorts and conservative data analysis, GWAS studies run the risk of type II error, yielding a limitation in our data analysis.⁹ Furthermore, the data regarding specific time frames in evolutionary skin lightening as well as the intensity of gene polymorphisms are limited.1 Further studies are needed to determine the interconnectedness of the current skin-lightening theories to identify other important factors that may play a role in the process. Determining the key event can help us better understand skin-adaptation mechanisms and create a framework for understanding the vital process involved in adaptation, survival, and disease manifestation in different patient populations.

The risk for developing skin cancer can be somewhat attributed to variations in skin pigmentation. Historically, lighter skin pigmentation has been observed in populations living in higher latitudes and darker pigmentation in populations near the equator. Although skin pigmentation is a conglomeration of genetic and environmental factors, anthropologic studies have demonstrated an association of human skin lightening with historic human migratory patterns.¹ It is postulated that migration to latitudes with less UVB light penetration has resulted in a compensatory natural selection of lighter skin types. Furthermore, the driving force behind this migration-associated skin lightening has remained unclear.¹

The need for folate metabolism, vitamin D synthesis, and barrier protection, as well as cultural practices, has been postulated as driving factors for skin pigmentation variation. Synthesis of vitamin D is a UV radiation (UVR)–dependent process and has remained a prominent theoretical driver for the basis of evolutionary skin lightening. Vitamin D can be acquired both exogenously or endogenously via dietary supplementation or sunlight; however, historically it has been obtained through UVB exposure primarily. Once UVB is absorbed by the skin, it catalyzes conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D₃, which is converted to vitamin D in the kidneys.^2,3 It is suggested that lighter skin tones have an advantage over darker skin tones in synthesizing vitamin D at higher latitudes where there is less UVB, thus leading to the adaptation process.1 In this systematic review, we analyzed the evolutionary vitamin D adaptation hypothesis and assessed the validity of evidence supporting this theory in the literature.

Methods

A search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Reviews database was conducted using the terms evolution, vitamin D, and skin to generate articles published from 2010 to 2022 that evaluated the influence of UVR-dependent production of vitamin D on skin pigmentation through historical migration patterns (Figure). Studies were excluded during an initial screening of abstracts followed by full-text assessment if they only had abstracts and if articles were inaccessible for review or in the form of case reports and commentaries.

The following data were extracted from each included study: reference citation, affiliated institutions of authors, author specialties, journal name, year of publication, study period, type of article, type of study, mechanism of adaptation, data concluding or supporting vitamin D as the driver, and data concluding or suggesting against vitamin D as the driver. Data concluding or supporting vitamin D as the driver were recorded from statistically significant results, study conclusions, and direct quotations. Data concluding or suggesting against vitamin D as the driver also were recorded from significant results, study conclusions, and direct quotes. The mechanism of adaptation was based on vitamin D synthesis modulation, melanin upregulation, genetic selections, genetic drift, mating patterns, increased vitamin D sensitivity, interbreeding, and diet.

Studies included in the analysis were placed into 1 of 3 categories: supporting, neutral, and against. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria were used to classify the level of evidence of each article.⁴ Each article’s level of evidence was then graded (Table 1). The SORT grading levels were based on quality and evidence type: level 1 signified good-quality, patient-oriented evidence; level 2 signified limited-quality, patient-oriented evidence; and level 3 signified other evidence.⁴

Results

Article Selection—A total of 229 articles were identified for screening, and 39 studies met inclusion criteria.^1-3,5-40 Systematic and retrospective reviews were the most common types of studies. Genomic analysis/sequencing/genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were the most common methods of analysis. Of these 39 articles, 26 were classified as supporting the evolutionary vitamin D adaptation hypothesis, 10 were classified as neutral, and 3 were classified as against (Table 1). 

Of the articles classified as supporting the vitamin D hypothesis, 13 articles were level 1 evidence, 9 were level 2, and 4 were level 3. Key findings supporting the vitamin D hypothesis included genetic natural selection favoring vitamin D synthesis genes at higher latitudes with lower UVR and the skin lightening that occurred to protect against vitamin D deficiency (Table 1). Specific genes supporting these findings included 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase (DHCR7), vitamin D receptor (VDR), tyrosinase (TYR), tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP1), oculocutaneous albinism type 2 melanosomal transmembrane protein (OCA2), solute carrier family 45 member 2 (SLC45A2), solute carrier family 4 member 5 (SLC24A5), Kit ligand (KITLG), melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), and HECT and RLD domain containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 2 (HERC2)(Table 2).

Comment

The importance of appropriate vitamin D levels is hypothesized as a potent driver in skin lightening because the vitamin is essential for many biochemical processes within the human body. Proper calcification of bones requires activated vitamin D to prevent rickets in childhood. Pelvic deformation in women with rickets can obstruct childbirth in primitive medical environments.¹⁵ This direct reproductive impairment suggests a strong selective pressure for skin lightening in populations that migrated northward to enhance vitamin D synthesis. 

Of the 39 articles that we reviewed, the majority (n=26 [66.7%]) supported the hypothesis that vitamin D synthesis was the main driver behind skin lightening, whereas 3 (7.7%) did not support the hypothesis and 10 (25.6%) were neutral. Other leading theories explaining skin lightening included the idea that enhanced melanogenesis protected against folate degradation; genetic selection for light-skin alleles due to genetic drift; skin lightening being the result of sexual selection; and a combination of factors, including dietary choices, clothing preferences, and skin permeability barriers. 

Articles With Supporting Evidence for the Vitamin D Theory—As Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, migration patterns demonstrated the correlation between distance from the equator and skin pigmentation from natural selection. Individuals with darker skin pigment required higher levels of UVR to synthesize vitamin D. According to Beleza et al,1 as humans migrated to areas of higher latitudes with lower levels of UVR, natural selection favored the development of lighter skin to maximize vitamin D production. Vitamin D is linked to calcium metabolism, and its deficiency can lead to bone malformations and poor immune function.³⁵ Several genes affecting melanogenesis and skin pigment have been found to have geospatial patterns that map to different geographic locations of various populations, indicating how human migration patterns out of Africa created this natural selection for skin lightening. The gene KITLG—associated with lighter skin pigmentation—has been found in high frequencies in both European and East Asian populations and is proposed to have increased in frequency after the migration out of Africa. However, the genes TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 were found at high frequencies only in European populations, and this selection occurred 11,000 to 19,000 years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (15,000–20,000 years ago), demonstrating the selection for European over East Asian characteristics. During this period, seasonal changes increased the risk for vitamin D deficiency and provided an urgency for selection to a lighter skin pigment.¹

The migration of H sapiens to northern latitudes prompted the selection of alleles that would increasevitamin D synthesis to counteract the reduced UV exposure. Genetic analysis studies have found key associations between genes encoding for the metabolism of vitamin D and pigmentation. Among this complex network are the essential downstream enzymes in the melanocortin receptor 1 pathway, including TYR and TYRP1. Forty-six of 960 single-nucleotide polymorphisms located in 29 different genes involved in skin pigmentation that were analyzed in a cohort of 2970 individuals were significantly associated with serum vitamin D levels (P<.05). The exocyst complex component 2 (EXOC2), TYR, and TYRP1 gene variants were shown to have the greatest influence on vitamin D status.⁹ These data reveal how pigment genotypes are predictive of vitamin D levels and the epistatic potential among many genes in this complex network. 

Gene variation plays an important role in vitamin D status when comparing genetic polymorphisms in populations in northern latitudes to African populations. Vitamin D₃ precursor availability is decreased by 7-DHCR catalyzing the precursors substrate to cholesterol. In a study using GWAS, it was found that “variations in DHCR7 may aid vitamin D production by conserving cutaneous 7-DHC levels. A high prevalence of DHCR7 variants were found in European and Northeast Asian populations but not in African populations, suggesting that selection occurred for these DHCR7 mutations in populations who migrated to more northern latitudes.⁵ Multilocus networks have been established between the VDR promotor and skin color genes (Table 2) that exhibit a strong in-Africa vs out-of-Africa frequency pattern. It also has been shown that genetic variation (suggesting a long-term evolutionary inclination) and epigenetic modification (indicative of short-term exposure) of VDR lends support to the vitamin D hypothesis. As latitude decreases, prevalence of VDR FokI (F allele), BsmI (B allele), ApaI (A allele), and TaqI (T allele) also decreases in a linear manner, linking latitude to VDR polymorphisms. Plasma vitamin D levels and photoperiod of conception—UV exposure during the periconceptional period—also were extrapolative of VDR methylation in a study involving 80 participants, where these 2 factors accounted for 17% of variance in methylation.⁶

Other noteworthy genes included HERC2, which has implications in the expression of OCA2 (melanocyte-specific transporter protein), and IRF4, which encodes for an important enzyme in folate-dependent melanin production. In an Australian cross-sectional study that analyzed vitamin D and pigmentation gene polymorphisms in conjunction with plasma vitamin D levels, the most notable rate of vitamin D loss occurred in individuals with the darkest pigmentation HERC2 (AA) genotype.³¹ In contrast, the lightest pigmentation HERC2 (GG) genotypes had increased vitamin D₃ photosynthesis. Interestingly, the lightest interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) TT genotype and the darkest HERC2 AA genotype, rendering the greatest folate loss and largest synthesis of vitamin D₃, were not seen in combination in any of the participants.³⁰ In addition to HERC2, derived alleles from pigment-associated genes SLC24A5*A and SLC45A2*G demonstrated greater frequencies in Europeans (>90%) compared to Africans and East Asians, where the allelic frequencies were either rare or absent.1 This evidence delineates not only the complexity but also the strong relationship between skin pigmentation, latitude, and vitamin D status. The GWAS also have supported this concept. In comparing European populations to African populations, there was a 4-fold increase in the frequencies of “derived alleles of the vitamin D transport protein (GC, rs3755967), the 25(OH)D₃ synthesizing enzyme (CYP2R1, rs10741657), VDR (rs2228570 (commonly known as FokI polymorphism), rs1544410 (Bsm1), and rs731236 (Taq1) and the VDR target genes CYP24A1 (rs17216707), CD14 (rs2569190), and CARD9 (rs4077515).”³²

Articles With Evidence Against the Vitamin D Theory—This review analyzed the level of support for the theory that vitamin D was the main driver for skin lightening. Although most articles supported this theory, there were articles that listed other plausible counterarguments. Jablonski and Chaplin3 suggested that humans living in higher latitudes compensated for increased demand of vitamin D by placing cultural importance on a diet of vitamin D–rich foods and thus would not have experienced decreased vitamin D levels, which we hypothesize were the driver for skin lightening. Elias et al³⁹ argued that initial pigment dilution may have instead served to improve metabolic conservation, as the authors found no evidence of rickets—the sequelae of vitamin D deficiency—in pre–industrial age human fossils. Elias and Williams3⁸ proposed that differences in skin pigment are due to a more intact skin permeability barrier as “a requirement for life in a desiccating terrestrial environment,” which is seen in darker skin tones compared to lighter skin tones and thus can survive better in warmer climates with less risk of infections or dehydration.

Articles With Neutral Evidence for the Vitamin D Theory—Greaves⁴¹ argued against the idea that skin evolved to become lighter to protect against vitamin D deficiency. They proposed that the chimpanzee, which is the human’s most closely related species, had light skin covered by hair, and the loss of this hair led to exposed pale skin that created a need for increased melanin production for protection from UVR. Greaves⁴¹ stated that the MC1R gene (associated with darker pigmentation) was selected for in African populations, and those with pale skin retained their original pigment as they migrated to higher latitudes. Further research has demonstrated that the genetic natural selection for skin pigment is a complex process that involves multiple gene variants found throughout cultures across the globe.

Conclusion

Skin pigmentation has continuously evolved alongside humans. Genetic selection for lighter skin coincides with a favorable selection for genes involved in vitamin D synthesis as humans migrated to northern latitudes, which enabled humans to produce adequate levels of exogenous vitamin D in low-UVR areas and in turn promoted survival. Early humans without access to supplementation or foods rich in vitamin D acquired vitamin D primarily through sunlight. In comparison to modern society, where vitamin D supplementation is accessible and human lifespans are prolonged, lighter skin tone is now a risk factor for malignant cancers of the skin rather than being a protective adaptation. Current sun behavior recommendations conclude that the body’s need for vitamin D is satisfied by UV exposure to the arms, legs, hands, and/or face for only 5 to 30 minutes between 10 am and 4 pm daily without sunscreen.^42-44 Approximately 600 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily is recommended in a typical adult younger than 70 years to avoid deficiency. In adults 70 years and older who are not receiving adequate sunlight exposure, 800 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation is recommended.⁴⁵

The hypothesis that skin lightening primarily was driven by the need for vitamin D can only be partially supported by our review. Studies have shown that there is a corresponding complex network of genes that determines skin pigmentation as well as vitamin D synthesis and conservation. However, there is sufficient evidence that skin lightening is multifactorial in nature, and vitamin D alone may not be the sole driver. The information in this review can be used by health care providers to educate patients on sun protection, given the lesser threat of severe vitamin D deficiency in developed communities today that have access to adequate nutrition and supplementation.

Skin lightening and its coinciding evolutionary drivers are a rather neglected area of research. Due to heterogeneous cohorts and conservative data analysis, GWAS studies run the risk of type II error, yielding a limitation in our data analysis.⁹ Furthermore, the data regarding specific time frames in evolutionary skin lightening as well as the intensity of gene polymorphisms are limited.1 Further studies are needed to determine the interconnectedness of the current skin-lightening theories to identify other important factors that may play a role in the process. Determining the key event can help us better understand skin-adaptation mechanisms and create a framework for understanding the vital process involved in adaptation, survival, and disease manifestation in different patient populations.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Traidl and colleagues report that obesity was linked to worse AD in German patients. The authors hit the nail on the head with their conclusions: "In this large and well-characterized AD patient cohort, obesity is significantly associated with physician- and patient-assessed measures of AD disease severity. However, the corresponding effect sizes were low and of questionable clinical relevance." What might account for the small difference in disease severity? Adherence to treatment is highly variable among patients with AD. A small tendency toward worse adherence in patients with obesity could easily explain the small differences seen in disease severity.

Eichenfeld and colleagues report that topical ruxolitinib maintained good efficacy over a year in open-label use. Topical ruxolitinib is a very effective treatment for AD. If real-life AD patients on topical ruxolitinib were to lose efficacy over time, I'd consider the possibility that they've developed mutant Janus kinase (JAK) enzymes that are no longer responsive to the drug. Just kidding. I doubt that such mutations ever occur. If topical ruxolitinib in AD patients were to lose efficacy over time, I'd strongly consider the possibility that patients' adherence to the treatment is no longer as good as it was before. Long-term adherence to topical treatment can be abysmal. Adherence in clinical trials is probably a lot better than in clinical practice. When we see topical treatments that are effective in clinical trials failing in real-life patients with AD, it may be prudent to address the possibility of poor adherence.

I'd love to see a head-to-head trial of tralokinumab vs dupilumab in the treatment of moderate to severe AD. Lacking that, Torres and colleagues report an indirect comparison of the two drugs in patients also treated with topical steroids. This study, funded by the manufacturer of tralokinumab, reported that the two drugs have similar efficacy. How much of the efficacy was due to the topical steroid use is not clear to me. I'd still love to see a head-to-head trial of tralokinumab vs dupilumab to have a better, more confident sense of their relative efficacy.

Is AD associated with brain cancer, as reported by Xin and colleagues? I'm not an expert in their methodology, but they did find a statistically significant increased risk, with an odds ratio of 1.0005. I understand the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer to be about 80. Even if the increased odds of 1.005 — no, wait, that's 1.0005 — is truly due to AD, this tiny difference doesn't seem meaningful in any way.

Traidl and colleagues report that obesity was linked to worse AD in German patients. The authors hit the nail on the head with their conclusions: "In this large and well-characterized AD patient cohort, obesity is significantly associated with physician- and patient-assessed measures of AD disease severity. However, the corresponding effect sizes were low and of questionable clinical relevance." What might account for the small difference in disease severity? Adherence to treatment is highly variable among patients with AD. A small tendency toward worse adherence in patients with obesity could easily explain the small differences seen in disease severity.

Eichenfeld and colleagues report that topical ruxolitinib maintained good efficacy over a year in open-label use. Topical ruxolitinib is a very effective treatment for AD. If real-life AD patients on topical ruxolitinib were to lose efficacy over time, I'd consider the possibility that they've developed mutant Janus kinase (JAK) enzymes that are no longer responsive to the drug. Just kidding. I doubt that such mutations ever occur. If topical ruxolitinib in AD patients were to lose efficacy over time, I'd strongly consider the possibility that patients' adherence to the treatment is no longer as good as it was before. Long-term adherence to topical treatment can be abysmal. Adherence in clinical trials is probably a lot better than in clinical practice. When we see topical treatments that are effective in clinical trials failing in real-life patients with AD, it may be prudent to address the possibility of poor adherence.

I'd love to see a head-to-head trial of tralokinumab vs dupilumab in the treatment of moderate to severe AD. Lacking that, Torres and colleagues report an indirect comparison of the two drugs in patients also treated with topical steroids. This study, funded by the manufacturer of tralokinumab, reported that the two drugs have similar efficacy. How much of the efficacy was due to the topical steroid use is not clear to me. I'd still love to see a head-to-head trial of tralokinumab vs dupilumab to have a better, more confident sense of their relative efficacy.

Is AD associated with brain cancer, as reported by Xin and colleagues? I'm not an expert in their methodology, but they did find a statistically significant increased risk, with an odds ratio of 1.0005. I understand the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer to be about 80. Even if the increased odds of 1.005 — no, wait, that's 1.0005 — is truly due to AD, this tiny difference doesn't seem meaningful in any way.

Traidl and colleagues report that obesity was linked to worse AD in German patients. The authors hit the nail on the head with their conclusions: "In this large and well-characterized AD patient cohort, obesity is significantly associated with physician- and patient-assessed measures of AD disease severity. However, the corresponding effect sizes were low and of questionable clinical relevance." What might account for the small difference in disease severity? Adherence to treatment is highly variable among patients with AD. A small tendency toward worse adherence in patients with obesity could easily explain the small differences seen in disease severity.

Eichenfeld and colleagues report that topical ruxolitinib maintained good efficacy over a year in open-label use. Topical ruxolitinib is a very effective treatment for AD. If real-life AD patients on topical ruxolitinib were to lose efficacy over time, I'd consider the possibility that they've developed mutant Janus kinase (JAK) enzymes that are no longer responsive to the drug. Just kidding. I doubt that such mutations ever occur. If topical ruxolitinib in AD patients were to lose efficacy over time, I'd strongly consider the possibility that patients' adherence to the treatment is no longer as good as it was before. Long-term adherence to topical treatment can be abysmal. Adherence in clinical trials is probably a lot better than in clinical practice. When we see topical treatments that are effective in clinical trials failing in real-life patients with AD, it may be prudent to address the possibility of poor adherence.

I'd love to see a head-to-head trial of tralokinumab vs dupilumab in the treatment of moderate to severe AD. Lacking that, Torres and colleagues report an indirect comparison of the two drugs in patients also treated with topical steroids. This study, funded by the manufacturer of tralokinumab, reported that the two drugs have similar efficacy. How much of the efficacy was due to the topical steroid use is not clear to me. I'd still love to see a head-to-head trial of tralokinumab vs dupilumab to have a better, more confident sense of their relative efficacy.

Is AD associated with brain cancer, as reported by Xin and colleagues? I'm not an expert in their methodology, but they did find a statistically significant increased risk, with an odds ratio of 1.0005. I understand the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer to be about 80. Even if the increased odds of 1.005 — no, wait, that's 1.0005 — is truly due to AD, this tiny difference doesn't seem meaningful in any way.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

In an experiment that pitted the wits of pediatric dermatologists against ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to answer board examination–type questions, pediatric dermatologists outperformed both iterations of the artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool, results from a small single-center study showed.

“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”

Charles Huang

For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.

On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.

“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”

Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.

Dr. Buethe

“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”

Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”

Dr. Ilyas

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

In an experiment that pitted the wits of pediatric dermatologists against ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to answer board examination–type questions, pediatric dermatologists outperformed both iterations of the artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool, results from a small single-center study showed.

“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”

Charles Huang

For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.

On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.

“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”

Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.

Dr. Buethe

“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”

Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”

Dr. Ilyas

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

In an experiment that pitted the wits of pediatric dermatologists against ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to answer board examination–type questions, pediatric dermatologists outperformed both iterations of the artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool, results from a small single-center study showed.

“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”

Charles Huang

For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.

On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.

“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”

Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.

Dr. Buethe

“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”

Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”

Dr. Ilyas

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

Antiepileptic and anti-infectious agents were the most common drugs associated with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) in children in an analysis of a World Health Organization (WHO) database.

METHODOLOGY:

• SJS and TEN are rare, life-threatening mucocutaneous reactions mainly associated with medications, but large pharmacovigilance studies of drugs associated with SJS-TEN in the pediatric population are still lacking.
• Using the WHO’s pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase) containing individual case safety reports from January 1967 to July 2022, researchers identified 7342 adverse drug reaction reports of SJS-TEN in children (younger than 18 years; median age, 9 years) in all six continents. Median onset was 5 days, and 3.2% were fatal.
• They analyzed drugs reported as suspected treatments, and for each molecule, they performed a case–non-case study to assess a potential pharmacovigilance signal by computing the information component (IC).
• A positive IC value suggested more frequent reporting of a specific drug-adverse reaction pair. A positive IC025, a traditional threshold for statistical signal detection, is suggestive of a potential pharmacovigilance signal.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 165 drugs were associated with a diagnosis of SJS-TEN; antiepileptic and anti-infectious drugs were the most common drug classes represented.
• The five most frequently reported drugs were carbamazepine (11.7%), lamotrigine (10.6%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (9%), acetaminophen (8.4%), and phenytoin (6.6%). The five drugs with the highest IC025 were lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and nimesulide.
• All antiepileptics, many antibiotic families, dapsone, antiretroviral drugs, some antifungal drugs, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified in reports, with penicillins the most frequently reported antibiotic family and sulfonamides having the strongest pharmacovigilance signal.
• Vaccines were not associated with significant signals.

IN PRACTICE:

The study provides an update on “the spectrum of drugs potentially associated with SJS-TEN in the pediatric population,” the authors concluded, and “underlines the importance of reporting to pharmacovigilance the suspicion of this severe side effect of drugs with the most precise and detailed clinical description possible.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pauline Bataille, MD, of the Department of Pediatric Dermatology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris City University, France, was published online in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the possibility that some cases could have had an infectious or idiopathic cause not related to a drug and the lack of detailed clinical data in the database.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Antiepileptic and anti-infectious agents were the most common drugs associated with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) in children in an analysis of a World Health Organization (WHO) database.

METHODOLOGY:

• SJS and TEN are rare, life-threatening mucocutaneous reactions mainly associated with medications, but large pharmacovigilance studies of drugs associated with SJS-TEN in the pediatric population are still lacking.
• Using the WHO’s pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase) containing individual case safety reports from January 1967 to July 2022, researchers identified 7342 adverse drug reaction reports of SJS-TEN in children (younger than 18 years; median age, 9 years) in all six continents. Median onset was 5 days, and 3.2% were fatal.
• They analyzed drugs reported as suspected treatments, and for each molecule, they performed a case–non-case study to assess a potential pharmacovigilance signal by computing the information component (IC).
• A positive IC value suggested more frequent reporting of a specific drug-adverse reaction pair. A positive IC025, a traditional threshold for statistical signal detection, is suggestive of a potential pharmacovigilance signal.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 165 drugs were associated with a diagnosis of SJS-TEN; antiepileptic and anti-infectious drugs were the most common drug classes represented.
• The five most frequently reported drugs were carbamazepine (11.7%), lamotrigine (10.6%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (9%), acetaminophen (8.4%), and phenytoin (6.6%). The five drugs with the highest IC025 were lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and nimesulide.
• All antiepileptics, many antibiotic families, dapsone, antiretroviral drugs, some antifungal drugs, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified in reports, with penicillins the most frequently reported antibiotic family and sulfonamides having the strongest pharmacovigilance signal.
• Vaccines were not associated with significant signals.

IN PRACTICE:

The study provides an update on “the spectrum of drugs potentially associated with SJS-TEN in the pediatric population,” the authors concluded, and “underlines the importance of reporting to pharmacovigilance the suspicion of this severe side effect of drugs with the most precise and detailed clinical description possible.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pauline Bataille, MD, of the Department of Pediatric Dermatology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris City University, France, was published online in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the possibility that some cases could have had an infectious or idiopathic cause not related to a drug and the lack of detailed clinical data in the database.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Antiepileptic and anti-infectious agents were the most common drugs associated with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) in children in an analysis of a World Health Organization (WHO) database.

METHODOLOGY:

• SJS and TEN are rare, life-threatening mucocutaneous reactions mainly associated with medications, but large pharmacovigilance studies of drugs associated with SJS-TEN in the pediatric population are still lacking.
• Using the WHO’s pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase) containing individual case safety reports from January 1967 to July 2022, researchers identified 7342 adverse drug reaction reports of SJS-TEN in children (younger than 18 years; median age, 9 years) in all six continents. Median onset was 5 days, and 3.2% were fatal.
• They analyzed drugs reported as suspected treatments, and for each molecule, they performed a case–non-case study to assess a potential pharmacovigilance signal by computing the information component (IC).
• A positive IC value suggested more frequent reporting of a specific drug-adverse reaction pair. A positive IC025, a traditional threshold for statistical signal detection, is suggestive of a potential pharmacovigilance signal.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 165 drugs were associated with a diagnosis of SJS-TEN; antiepileptic and anti-infectious drugs were the most common drug classes represented.
• The five most frequently reported drugs were carbamazepine (11.7%), lamotrigine (10.6%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (9%), acetaminophen (8.4%), and phenytoin (6.6%). The five drugs with the highest IC025 were lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and nimesulide.
• All antiepileptics, many antibiotic families, dapsone, antiretroviral drugs, some antifungal drugs, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified in reports, with penicillins the most frequently reported antibiotic family and sulfonamides having the strongest pharmacovigilance signal.
• Vaccines were not associated with significant signals.

IN PRACTICE:

The study provides an update on “the spectrum of drugs potentially associated with SJS-TEN in the pediatric population,” the authors concluded, and “underlines the importance of reporting to pharmacovigilance the suspicion of this severe side effect of drugs with the most precise and detailed clinical description possible.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pauline Bataille, MD, of the Department of Pediatric Dermatology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris City University, France, was published online in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the possibility that some cases could have had an infectious or idiopathic cause not related to a drug and the lack of detailed clinical data in the database.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous manifestations of cystic fibrosis (CF) include palmar wrinkling, nutrient deficiency dermatitis, vascular disorders, and reactions to CF treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with CF, caused by a mutation in the CF Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene, can develop diverse dermatologic manifestations.
• Researchers reviewed the literature and provided their own clinical experience regarding dermatologic manifestations of CF.
• They also reviewed the cutaneous side effects of CFTR modulators and antibiotics used to treat CF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Aquagenic wrinkling of the palm is common in individuals with CF, affecting up to 80% of patients (and 25% of CF gene carriers), and can be an early manifestation of CF. Treatments include topical medications (such as aluminum chloride, corticosteroids, and salicylic acid), botulinum toxin injections, and recently, CFTR-modulating treatments.
• CF nutrient deficiency dermatitis, often in a diaper distribution, usually appears in infancy and, before newborn screening was available, was sometimes the first sign of CF in some cases. It usually resolves with an adequate diet, pancreatic enzymes, and/or nutritional supplements. Zinc and essential fatty acid deficiencies can lead to acrodermatitis enteropathica–like symptoms and psoriasiform rashes, respectively.
• CF is also associated with vascular disorders, including cutaneous and, rarely, systemic vasculitis. Treatment includes topical and oral steroids and immune-modulating therapies.
• CFTR modulators, now the most common and highly effective treatment for CF, are associated with several skin reactions, which can be managed with treatments that include topical steroids and oral antihistamines. Frequent antibiotic treatment can also trigger skin reactions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognition and familiarity with dermatologic clinical manifestations of CF are important for multidisciplinary care” for patients with CF, the authors wrote, adding that “dermatology providers may play a significant role in the diagnosis and management of CF cutaneous comorbidities.”

SOURCE:

Aaron D. Smith, BS, from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and coauthors were from the departments of dermatology and pulmonology/critical care medicine at UVA. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors did not make a comment about the limitations of their review.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for the review. The authors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous manifestations of cystic fibrosis (CF) include palmar wrinkling, nutrient deficiency dermatitis, vascular disorders, and reactions to CF treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with CF, caused by a mutation in the CF Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene, can develop diverse dermatologic manifestations.
• Researchers reviewed the literature and provided their own clinical experience regarding dermatologic manifestations of CF.
• They also reviewed the cutaneous side effects of CFTR modulators and antibiotics used to treat CF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Aquagenic wrinkling of the palm is common in individuals with CF, affecting up to 80% of patients (and 25% of CF gene carriers), and can be an early manifestation of CF. Treatments include topical medications (such as aluminum chloride, corticosteroids, and salicylic acid), botulinum toxin injections, and recently, CFTR-modulating treatments.
• CF nutrient deficiency dermatitis, often in a diaper distribution, usually appears in infancy and, before newborn screening was available, was sometimes the first sign of CF in some cases. It usually resolves with an adequate diet, pancreatic enzymes, and/or nutritional supplements. Zinc and essential fatty acid deficiencies can lead to acrodermatitis enteropathica–like symptoms and psoriasiform rashes, respectively.
• CF is also associated with vascular disorders, including cutaneous and, rarely, systemic vasculitis. Treatment includes topical and oral steroids and immune-modulating therapies.
• CFTR modulators, now the most common and highly effective treatment for CF, are associated with several skin reactions, which can be managed with treatments that include topical steroids and oral antihistamines. Frequent antibiotic treatment can also trigger skin reactions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognition and familiarity with dermatologic clinical manifestations of CF are important for multidisciplinary care” for patients with CF, the authors wrote, adding that “dermatology providers may play a significant role in the diagnosis and management of CF cutaneous comorbidities.”

SOURCE:

Aaron D. Smith, BS, from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and coauthors were from the departments of dermatology and pulmonology/critical care medicine at UVA. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors did not make a comment about the limitations of their review.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for the review. The authors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous manifestations of cystic fibrosis (CF) include palmar wrinkling, nutrient deficiency dermatitis, vascular disorders, and reactions to CF treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with CF, caused by a mutation in the CF Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene, can develop diverse dermatologic manifestations.
• Researchers reviewed the literature and provided their own clinical experience regarding dermatologic manifestations of CF.
• They also reviewed the cutaneous side effects of CFTR modulators and antibiotics used to treat CF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Aquagenic wrinkling of the palm is common in individuals with CF, affecting up to 80% of patients (and 25% of CF gene carriers), and can be an early manifestation of CF. Treatments include topical medications (such as aluminum chloride, corticosteroids, and salicylic acid), botulinum toxin injections, and recently, CFTR-modulating treatments.
• CF nutrient deficiency dermatitis, often in a diaper distribution, usually appears in infancy and, before newborn screening was available, was sometimes the first sign of CF in some cases. It usually resolves with an adequate diet, pancreatic enzymes, and/or nutritional supplements. Zinc and essential fatty acid deficiencies can lead to acrodermatitis enteropathica–like symptoms and psoriasiform rashes, respectively.
• CF is also associated with vascular disorders, including cutaneous and, rarely, systemic vasculitis. Treatment includes topical and oral steroids and immune-modulating therapies.
• CFTR modulators, now the most common and highly effective treatment for CF, are associated with several skin reactions, which can be managed with treatments that include topical steroids and oral antihistamines. Frequent antibiotic treatment can also trigger skin reactions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognition and familiarity with dermatologic clinical manifestations of CF are important for multidisciplinary care” for patients with CF, the authors wrote, adding that “dermatology providers may play a significant role in the diagnosis and management of CF cutaneous comorbidities.”

SOURCE:

Aaron D. Smith, BS, from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and coauthors were from the departments of dermatology and pulmonology/critical care medicine at UVA. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors did not make a comment about the limitations of their review.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for the review. The authors had no disclosures.

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

Key clinical point: Treatment with 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib demonstrated rapid and durable improvements in symptoms and quality of life in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), based on a treat-to-target approach.

Major finding: Overall, >80%, >78%, and ≥87% of patients achieved the 3-month initial acceptable target, whereas ≥53%, >61%, and >73% of patients achieved the 6-month optimal target goal with 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib vs placebo at weeks 2, 16, and 52, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving a higher number of individual target criteria increased over time for both 3- and 6-month target goals.

Study details: This treat-to-target analysis of Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 phase 3 studies included 1282 adults with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg upadacitinib (n = 428), 30 mg upadacitinib (n = 424), or placebo (n = 430).

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. Five authors declared being employees of AbbVie or holding AbbVie stock, stock options, or patents. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Kwatra SG, de Bruin-Weller M, Silverberg JI, et al. Targeted combined endpoint improvement in patient and disease domains in atopic dermatitis: A treat-to-target analysis of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with upadacitinib. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024;104:adv18452 (May 6). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v104.18452 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib demonstrated rapid and durable improvements in symptoms and quality of life in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), based on a treat-to-target approach.

Major finding: Overall, >80%, >78%, and ≥87% of patients achieved the 3-month initial acceptable target, whereas ≥53%, >61%, and >73% of patients achieved the 6-month optimal target goal with 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib vs placebo at weeks 2, 16, and 52, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving a higher number of individual target criteria increased over time for both 3- and 6-month target goals.

Study details: This treat-to-target analysis of Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 phase 3 studies included 1282 adults with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg upadacitinib (n = 428), 30 mg upadacitinib (n = 424), or placebo (n = 430).

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. Five authors declared being employees of AbbVie or holding AbbVie stock, stock options, or patents. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Kwatra SG, de Bruin-Weller M, Silverberg JI, et al. Targeted combined endpoint improvement in patient and disease domains in atopic dermatitis: A treat-to-target analysis of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with upadacitinib. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024;104:adv18452 (May 6). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v104.18452 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib demonstrated rapid and durable improvements in symptoms and quality of life in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), based on a treat-to-target approach.

Major finding: Overall, >80%, >78%, and ≥87% of patients achieved the 3-month initial acceptable target, whereas ≥53%, >61%, and >73% of patients achieved the 6-month optimal target goal with 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib vs placebo at weeks 2, 16, and 52, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving a higher number of individual target criteria increased over time for both 3- and 6-month target goals.

Study details: This treat-to-target analysis of Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 phase 3 studies included 1282 adults with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg upadacitinib (n = 428), 30 mg upadacitinib (n = 424), or placebo (n = 430).

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. Five authors declared being employees of AbbVie or holding AbbVie stock, stock options, or patents. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Kwatra SG, de Bruin-Weller M, Silverberg JI, et al. Targeted combined endpoint improvement in patient and disease domains in atopic dermatitis: A treat-to-target analysis of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with upadacitinib. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024;104:adv18452 (May 6). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v104.18452 Source

Key clinical point: Dupilumab treatment was well-tolerated and demonstrated improved clinical and molecular responses in pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Dupilumab significantly reduced Eczema Area and Severity Index, SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index, and Investigator’s Global Assessment scores at 3 and 6 months (all P < .05), along with significant reduction in AD-associated stratum corneum biomarker levels at 3 months (P < .01). Dupilumab showed good tolerability, with adverse events reported in only four patients.

Study details: This study included 314 pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD from the German TREATkids registry, of whom 87 received dupilumab.

Disclosures: TREATkids is the child and adolescent section of the TREATgermany registry, which is supported by AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Galderma S.A., LEO Pharma GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Pfizer Inc., and Sanofi. Several authors declared receiving research grants, lecture, or consultancy fees from or having other ties with various sources, including the supporters of TREATgermany.

Source: Stölzl D, Sander N, Siegels D, et al, and the TREATgermany study group. Clinical and molecular response to dupilumab treatment in pediatric atopic dermatitis: Results of the German TREATkids registry. Allergy. 2024 (May 7). doi: 0.1111/all.16147 Source

Key clinical point: Dupilumab treatment was well-tolerated and demonstrated improved clinical and molecular responses in pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Dupilumab significantly reduced Eczema Area and Severity Index, SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index, and Investigator’s Global Assessment scores at 3 and 6 months (all P < .05), along with significant reduction in AD-associated stratum corneum biomarker levels at 3 months (P < .01). Dupilumab showed good tolerability, with adverse events reported in only four patients.

Study details: This study included 314 pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD from the German TREATkids registry, of whom 87 received dupilumab.

Disclosures: TREATkids is the child and adolescent section of the TREATgermany registry, which is supported by AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Galderma S.A., LEO Pharma GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Pfizer Inc., and Sanofi. Several authors declared receiving research grants, lecture, or consultancy fees from or having other ties with various sources, including the supporters of TREATgermany.

Source: Stölzl D, Sander N, Siegels D, et al, and the TREATgermany study group. Clinical and molecular response to dupilumab treatment in pediatric atopic dermatitis: Results of the German TREATkids registry. Allergy. 2024 (May 7). doi: 0.1111/all.16147 Source

Key clinical point: Dupilumab treatment was well-tolerated and demonstrated improved clinical and molecular responses in pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Dupilumab significantly reduced Eczema Area and Severity Index, SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index, and Investigator’s Global Assessment scores at 3 and 6 months (all P < .05), along with significant reduction in AD-associated stratum corneum biomarker levels at 3 months (P < .01). Dupilumab showed good tolerability, with adverse events reported in only four patients.

Study details: This study included 314 pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD from the German TREATkids registry, of whom 87 received dupilumab.

Disclosures: TREATkids is the child and adolescent section of the TREATgermany registry, which is supported by AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Galderma S.A., LEO Pharma GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Pfizer Inc., and Sanofi. Several authors declared receiving research grants, lecture, or consultancy fees from or having other ties with various sources, including the supporters of TREATgermany.

Source: Stölzl D, Sander N, Siegels D, et al, and the TREATgermany study group. Clinical and molecular response to dupilumab treatment in pediatric atopic dermatitis: Results of the German TREATkids registry. Allergy. 2024 (May 7). doi: 0.1111/all.16147 Source

Key clinical point: Lebrikizumab monotherapy rapidly and consistently reduced atopic dermatitis (AD) extent and severity in patients with moderate to severe AD across all Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) clinical signs and body regions.

Major finding: At week 16, lebrikizumab vs placebo led to greater improvements in EASI scores and clinical signs (both P < .001) across all body regions in ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, with improvements observed as early as week 2 for all signs except erythema on head/neck (P < .05) and lower extremity erythema, edema/papulation, and lichenification (all P < .001), which improved significantly only by week 4 in ADvocate2.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of ADvocate1 (n = 424) and ADvocate2 (n = 427) included adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 250 mg lebrikizumab biweekly or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Dermira, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared having various ties with Dermira, Eli Lilly, and others. Five authors declared being employees or stockholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Simpson EL, de Bruin-Weller M, Hong HC, et al. Lebrikizumab provides rapid clinical responses across all Eczema Area and Severity Index body regions and clinical signs in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 (May 3). doi: 10.1007/s13555-024-01158-4 Source

Key clinical point: Lebrikizumab monotherapy rapidly and consistently reduced atopic dermatitis (AD) extent and severity in patients with moderate to severe AD across all Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) clinical signs and body regions.

Major finding: At week 16, lebrikizumab vs placebo led to greater improvements in EASI scores and clinical signs (both P < .001) across all body regions in ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, with improvements observed as early as week 2 for all signs except erythema on head/neck (P < .05) and lower extremity erythema, edema/papulation, and lichenification (all P < .001), which improved significantly only by week 4 in ADvocate2.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of ADvocate1 (n = 424) and ADvocate2 (n = 427) included adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 250 mg lebrikizumab biweekly or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Dermira, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared having various ties with Dermira, Eli Lilly, and others. Five authors declared being employees or stockholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Simpson EL, de Bruin-Weller M, Hong HC, et al. Lebrikizumab provides rapid clinical responses across all Eczema Area and Severity Index body regions and clinical signs in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 (May 3). doi: 10.1007/s13555-024-01158-4 Source

Key clinical point: Lebrikizumab monotherapy rapidly and consistently reduced atopic dermatitis (AD) extent and severity in patients with moderate to severe AD across all Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) clinical signs and body regions.

Major finding: At week 16, lebrikizumab vs placebo led to greater improvements in EASI scores and clinical signs (both P < .001) across all body regions in ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, with improvements observed as early as week 2 for all signs except erythema on head/neck (P < .05) and lower extremity erythema, edema/papulation, and lichenification (all P < .001), which improved significantly only by week 4 in ADvocate2.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of ADvocate1 (n = 424) and ADvocate2 (n = 427) included adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 250 mg lebrikizumab biweekly or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Dermira, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared having various ties with Dermira, Eli Lilly, and others. Five authors declared being employees or stockholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Simpson EL, de Bruin-Weller M, Hong HC, et al. Lebrikizumab provides rapid clinical responses across all Eczema Area and Severity Index body regions and clinical signs in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 (May 3). doi: 10.1007/s13555-024-01158-4 Source