Dermatology News

Words do have power. Names have power. Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer ... They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it. — Ursula K. Le Guin
 

Every medical student should have a class in linguistics. I’m just unsure what it might replace. Maybe physiology? (When was the last time you used Fick’s or Fourier’s Laws anyway?). Even if we don’t supplant any core curriculum, it’s worth noting that we spend more time in our daily work calculating how to communicate things than calculating cardiac outputs. That we can convey so much so consistently and without specific training is a marvel. Making the diagnosis or a plan is often the easy part. The difficulty comes in trying to communicate what we know to patients such that they understand and can act on it.

Linguistics is a broad field. At its essence, it studies how we communicate. It’s fascinating how we use tone, word choice, gestures, syntax, and grammar to explain, reassure, instruct or implore patients. Medical appointments are sometimes high stakes and occur within a huge variety of circumstances. In a single day of clinic, I had a patient with dementia, and one pursuing a PhD in P-Chem. I had English speakers, second language English speakers, and a Vietnamese patient who knew no English. In just one day, I explained things to toddlers and adults, a Black woman from Oklahoma and a Jewish woman from New York. For a brief few minutes, each of them was my partner in a game of medical charades. For each one, I had to figure out how to get them to know what I’m thinking.

Dr. Benabio

I learned of this game of charades concept from a podcast featuring Morten Christiansen, professor of psychology at Cornell University, and professor in Cognitive Science of Language, at Aarhus University, Denmark. The idea is that language can be thought of as a game where speakers constantly improvise based on the topic, each one’s expertise, and the shared understanding. I found this intriguing. In his explanation, grammar and definitions are less important than the mutual understanding of what is being communicated. It helps explain the wide variations of speech even among those speaking the same language. It also flips the idea that brains are designed for language, a concept proposed by linguistic greats such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. Rather, what we call language is just the best solution our brains could create to convey information.

I thought about how each of us instinctively varies the complexity of sentences and tone of voice based on the ability of each patient to understand. Gestures, storytelling and analogies are linguistic tools we use without thinking about them. We’ve a unique communications conundrum in that we often need patients to understand a complex idea, but only have minutes to get them there. We don’t want them to panic. We also don’t want them to be so dispassionate as to not act. To speed things up, we often use a technique known as chunking, short phrases that capture an idea in one bite. For example, “soak and smear” to get atopic patients to moisturize or “scrape and burn” to describe a curettage and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma or “a stick and a burn” before injecting them (I never liked that one). These are pithy, efficient. But they don’t always work.

One afternoon I had a 93-year-old woman with glossodynia. She had dementia and her 96-year-old husband was helping. When I explained how she’d “swish and spit” her magic mouthwash, he looked perplexed. Is she swishing a wand or something? I shook my head, “No” and gestured with my hands palms down, waving back and forth. It is just a mouthwash. She should rinse, then spit it out. I lost that round.

Then a 64-year-old woman whom I had to advise that the pink bump on her arm was a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor. Do I call it a Merkel cell carcinoma? Do I say, “You know, like the one Jimmy Buffett had?” (Nope, not a good use of storytelling). She wanted to know how she got it. Sun exposure, we think. Or, perhaps a virus. Just how does one explain a virus called MCPyV that is ubiquitous but somehow caused cancer just for you? How do you convey, “This is serious, but you might not die like Jimmy Buffett?” I had to use all my language skills to get this right.

Then there is the Henderson-Hasselbalch problem of linguistics: communicating through a translator. When doing so, I’m cognizant of choosing short, simple sentences. Subject, verb, object. First this, then that. This mitigates what’s lost in translation and reduces waiting for translations (especially when your patient is storytelling in paragraphs). But try doing this with an emotionally wrought condition like alopecia. Finding the fewest words to convey that your FSH and estrogen levels are irrelevant to your telogen effluvium to a Vietnamese speaker is tricky. “Yes, I see your primary care physician ordered these tests. No, the numbers do not matter.” Did that translate as they are normal? Or that they don’t matter because she is 54? Or that they don’t matter to me because I didn’t order them?

When you find yourself exhausted at the day’s end, perhaps you’ll better appreciate how it was not only the graduate level medicine you did today; you’ve practically got a PhD in linguistics as well. You just didn’t realize it.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Words do have power. Names have power. Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer ... They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it. — Ursula K. Le Guin
 

Every medical student should have a class in linguistics. I’m just unsure what it might replace. Maybe physiology? (When was the last time you used Fick’s or Fourier’s Laws anyway?). Even if we don’t supplant any core curriculum, it’s worth noting that we spend more time in our daily work calculating how to communicate things than calculating cardiac outputs. That we can convey so much so consistently and without specific training is a marvel. Making the diagnosis or a plan is often the easy part. The difficulty comes in trying to communicate what we know to patients such that they understand and can act on it.

Linguistics is a broad field. At its essence, it studies how we communicate. It’s fascinating how we use tone, word choice, gestures, syntax, and grammar to explain, reassure, instruct or implore patients. Medical appointments are sometimes high stakes and occur within a huge variety of circumstances. In a single day of clinic, I had a patient with dementia, and one pursuing a PhD in P-Chem. I had English speakers, second language English speakers, and a Vietnamese patient who knew no English. In just one day, I explained things to toddlers and adults, a Black woman from Oklahoma and a Jewish woman from New York. For a brief few minutes, each of them was my partner in a game of medical charades. For each one, I had to figure out how to get them to know what I’m thinking.

Dr. Benabio

I learned of this game of charades concept from a podcast featuring Morten Christiansen, professor of psychology at Cornell University, and professor in Cognitive Science of Language, at Aarhus University, Denmark. The idea is that language can be thought of as a game where speakers constantly improvise based on the topic, each one’s expertise, and the shared understanding. I found this intriguing. In his explanation, grammar and definitions are less important than the mutual understanding of what is being communicated. It helps explain the wide variations of speech even among those speaking the same language. It also flips the idea that brains are designed for language, a concept proposed by linguistic greats such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. Rather, what we call language is just the best solution our brains could create to convey information.

I thought about how each of us instinctively varies the complexity of sentences and tone of voice based on the ability of each patient to understand. Gestures, storytelling and analogies are linguistic tools we use without thinking about them. We’ve a unique communications conundrum in that we often need patients to understand a complex idea, but only have minutes to get them there. We don’t want them to panic. We also don’t want them to be so dispassionate as to not act. To speed things up, we often use a technique known as chunking, short phrases that capture an idea in one bite. For example, “soak and smear” to get atopic patients to moisturize or “scrape and burn” to describe a curettage and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma or “a stick and a burn” before injecting them (I never liked that one). These are pithy, efficient. But they don’t always work.

One afternoon I had a 93-year-old woman with glossodynia. She had dementia and her 96-year-old husband was helping. When I explained how she’d “swish and spit” her magic mouthwash, he looked perplexed. Is she swishing a wand or something? I shook my head, “No” and gestured with my hands palms down, waving back and forth. It is just a mouthwash. She should rinse, then spit it out. I lost that round.

Then a 64-year-old woman whom I had to advise that the pink bump on her arm was a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor. Do I call it a Merkel cell carcinoma? Do I say, “You know, like the one Jimmy Buffett had?” (Nope, not a good use of storytelling). She wanted to know how she got it. Sun exposure, we think. Or, perhaps a virus. Just how does one explain a virus called MCPyV that is ubiquitous but somehow caused cancer just for you? How do you convey, “This is serious, but you might not die like Jimmy Buffett?” I had to use all my language skills to get this right.

Then there is the Henderson-Hasselbalch problem of linguistics: communicating through a translator. When doing so, I’m cognizant of choosing short, simple sentences. Subject, verb, object. First this, then that. This mitigates what’s lost in translation and reduces waiting for translations (especially when your patient is storytelling in paragraphs). But try doing this with an emotionally wrought condition like alopecia. Finding the fewest words to convey that your FSH and estrogen levels are irrelevant to your telogen effluvium to a Vietnamese speaker is tricky. “Yes, I see your primary care physician ordered these tests. No, the numbers do not matter.” Did that translate as they are normal? Or that they don’t matter because she is 54? Or that they don’t matter to me because I didn’t order them?

When you find yourself exhausted at the day’s end, perhaps you’ll better appreciate how it was not only the graduate level medicine you did today; you’ve practically got a PhD in linguistics as well. You just didn’t realize it.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Words do have power. Names have power. Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer ... They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it. — Ursula K. Le Guin
 

Every medical student should have a class in linguistics. I’m just unsure what it might replace. Maybe physiology? (When was the last time you used Fick’s or Fourier’s Laws anyway?). Even if we don’t supplant any core curriculum, it’s worth noting that we spend more time in our daily work calculating how to communicate things than calculating cardiac outputs. That we can convey so much so consistently and without specific training is a marvel. Making the diagnosis or a plan is often the easy part. The difficulty comes in trying to communicate what we know to patients such that they understand and can act on it.

Linguistics is a broad field. At its essence, it studies how we communicate. It’s fascinating how we use tone, word choice, gestures, syntax, and grammar to explain, reassure, instruct or implore patients. Medical appointments are sometimes high stakes and occur within a huge variety of circumstances. In a single day of clinic, I had a patient with dementia, and one pursuing a PhD in P-Chem. I had English speakers, second language English speakers, and a Vietnamese patient who knew no English. In just one day, I explained things to toddlers and adults, a Black woman from Oklahoma and a Jewish woman from New York. For a brief few minutes, each of them was my partner in a game of medical charades. For each one, I had to figure out how to get them to know what I’m thinking.

Dr. Benabio

I learned of this game of charades concept from a podcast featuring Morten Christiansen, professor of psychology at Cornell University, and professor in Cognitive Science of Language, at Aarhus University, Denmark. The idea is that language can be thought of as a game where speakers constantly improvise based on the topic, each one’s expertise, and the shared understanding. I found this intriguing. In his explanation, grammar and definitions are less important than the mutual understanding of what is being communicated. It helps explain the wide variations of speech even among those speaking the same language. It also flips the idea that brains are designed for language, a concept proposed by linguistic greats such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. Rather, what we call language is just the best solution our brains could create to convey information.

I thought about how each of us instinctively varies the complexity of sentences and tone of voice based on the ability of each patient to understand. Gestures, storytelling and analogies are linguistic tools we use without thinking about them. We’ve a unique communications conundrum in that we often need patients to understand a complex idea, but only have minutes to get them there. We don’t want them to panic. We also don’t want them to be so dispassionate as to not act. To speed things up, we often use a technique known as chunking, short phrases that capture an idea in one bite. For example, “soak and smear” to get atopic patients to moisturize or “scrape and burn” to describe a curettage and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma or “a stick and a burn” before injecting them (I never liked that one). These are pithy, efficient. But they don’t always work.

One afternoon I had a 93-year-old woman with glossodynia. She had dementia and her 96-year-old husband was helping. When I explained how she’d “swish and spit” her magic mouthwash, he looked perplexed. Is she swishing a wand or something? I shook my head, “No” and gestured with my hands palms down, waving back and forth. It is just a mouthwash. She should rinse, then spit it out. I lost that round.

Then a 64-year-old woman whom I had to advise that the pink bump on her arm was a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor. Do I call it a Merkel cell carcinoma? Do I say, “You know, like the one Jimmy Buffett had?” (Nope, not a good use of storytelling). She wanted to know how she got it. Sun exposure, we think. Or, perhaps a virus. Just how does one explain a virus called MCPyV that is ubiquitous but somehow caused cancer just for you? How do you convey, “This is serious, but you might not die like Jimmy Buffett?” I had to use all my language skills to get this right.

Then there is the Henderson-Hasselbalch problem of linguistics: communicating through a translator. When doing so, I’m cognizant of choosing short, simple sentences. Subject, verb, object. First this, then that. This mitigates what’s lost in translation and reduces waiting for translations (especially when your patient is storytelling in paragraphs). But try doing this with an emotionally wrought condition like alopecia. Finding the fewest words to convey that your FSH and estrogen levels are irrelevant to your telogen effluvium to a Vietnamese speaker is tricky. “Yes, I see your primary care physician ordered these tests. No, the numbers do not matter.” Did that translate as they are normal? Or that they don’t matter because she is 54? Or that they don’t matter to me because I didn’t order them?

When you find yourself exhausted at the day’s end, perhaps you’ll better appreciate how it was not only the graduate level medicine you did today; you’ve practically got a PhD in linguistics as well. You just didn’t realize it.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) — a treatment most commonly thought of for field cancerization — is an effective tool for reducing rhytides and lentigines, results from a small prospective study showed.

“Our study helps capture and quantify a phenomenon that clinicians who use PDT in their practice have already noticed: Patients experience a visible improvement across several cosmetically important metrics including but not limited to fine lines, wrinkles, and skin tightness following PDT,” one of the study authors, Luke Horton, MD, a fourth-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session.

Dr. Horton

For the study, 11 patients underwent a 120-minute incubation period with 17% 5-aminolevulinic acid over the face, followed by visible blue light PDT exposure for 16 minutes, to reduce rhytides. The researchers used a Vectra imaging system to capture three-dimensional images of the patients before the procedure and during the follow-up. Three dermatologists analyzed the pre-procedure and post-procedure images and used a validated five-point Merz wrinkle severity scale to grade various regions of the face including the forehead, glabella, lateral canthal rhytides, melolabial folds, nasolabial folds, and perioral rhytides.

They also used a five-point solar lentigines scale to evaluate the change in degree of pigmentation and quantity of age spots as well as the change in rhytid severity before and after PDT and the change in the seven-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) to gauge overall improvement of fine lines and wrinkles.

After a mean follow-up of 4.25 months, rhytid severity among the 11 patients was reduced by an average of 0.65 points on the Merz scale, with an SD of 0.20. Broken down by region, rhytid severity scores decreased by 0.2 points (SD, 0.42) for the forehead, 0.7 points (SD, 0.48) for the glabella and lateral canthal rhytides, 0.88 points (SD, 0.35) for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides, and 0.8 points (SD, 0.42) for the nasolabial folds. (The researchers excluded ratings for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides in two patients with beards.)

In other findings, solar lentigines grading showed an average reduction of 1 point (SD, 0.45), while the GAIS score improved by 1 or more for every patient, with an average of score of 1.45 (SD, 0.52), showing that some degree of improvement in facial rhytides was noted for all patients following PDT.

“The degree of improvement as measured by our independent physician graders was impressive and not far off from those reported with CO₂ ablative laser,” Horton said. “Further, the effect was not isolated to actinic keratoses but extended to improved appearance of fine lines, some deep lines, and lentigines. Although we are not implying that PDT is superior to and should replace lasers or other energy-based devices, it does provide a real, measurable cosmetic benefit.”

Clinicians, he added, can use these findings “to counsel their patients when discussing field cancerization treatment options, especially for patients who may be hesitant to undergo PDT as it can be a painful therapy with a considerable downtime for some.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings “shine more light on the long-standing off-label use of PDT for lessening signs of photoaging. Like studies done before it, I think this adds an additional benefit to discuss for those who are considering PDT treatment for their actinic keratoses.”

Horton acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size and the fact that physician graders were not blinded to which images were pre- and post-treatment, “which could introduce an element of bias in the data,” he said. “But this being an unfunded project born out of clinical observation, we hope to later expand its size. Furthermore, we invite other physicians to join us to better study these effects and to design protocols that minimize adverse effects and maximize clinical outcomes.”

His co-authors were Milan Hirpara; Sarah Choe; Joel Cohen, MD; and Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD.

No relevant disclosures were reported. Green had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) — a treatment most commonly thought of for field cancerization — is an effective tool for reducing rhytides and lentigines, results from a small prospective study showed.

“Our study helps capture and quantify a phenomenon that clinicians who use PDT in their practice have already noticed: Patients experience a visible improvement across several cosmetically important metrics including but not limited to fine lines, wrinkles, and skin tightness following PDT,” one of the study authors, Luke Horton, MD, a fourth-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session.

Dr. Horton

For the study, 11 patients underwent a 120-minute incubation period with 17% 5-aminolevulinic acid over the face, followed by visible blue light PDT exposure for 16 minutes, to reduce rhytides. The researchers used a Vectra imaging system to capture three-dimensional images of the patients before the procedure and during the follow-up. Three dermatologists analyzed the pre-procedure and post-procedure images and used a validated five-point Merz wrinkle severity scale to grade various regions of the face including the forehead, glabella, lateral canthal rhytides, melolabial folds, nasolabial folds, and perioral rhytides.

They also used a five-point solar lentigines scale to evaluate the change in degree of pigmentation and quantity of age spots as well as the change in rhytid severity before and after PDT and the change in the seven-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) to gauge overall improvement of fine lines and wrinkles.

After a mean follow-up of 4.25 months, rhytid severity among the 11 patients was reduced by an average of 0.65 points on the Merz scale, with an SD of 0.20. Broken down by region, rhytid severity scores decreased by 0.2 points (SD, 0.42) for the forehead, 0.7 points (SD, 0.48) for the glabella and lateral canthal rhytides, 0.88 points (SD, 0.35) for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides, and 0.8 points (SD, 0.42) for the nasolabial folds. (The researchers excluded ratings for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides in two patients with beards.)

In other findings, solar lentigines grading showed an average reduction of 1 point (SD, 0.45), while the GAIS score improved by 1 or more for every patient, with an average of score of 1.45 (SD, 0.52), showing that some degree of improvement in facial rhytides was noted for all patients following PDT.

“The degree of improvement as measured by our independent physician graders was impressive and not far off from those reported with CO₂ ablative laser,” Horton said. “Further, the effect was not isolated to actinic keratoses but extended to improved appearance of fine lines, some deep lines, and lentigines. Although we are not implying that PDT is superior to and should replace lasers or other energy-based devices, it does provide a real, measurable cosmetic benefit.”

Clinicians, he added, can use these findings “to counsel their patients when discussing field cancerization treatment options, especially for patients who may be hesitant to undergo PDT as it can be a painful therapy with a considerable downtime for some.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings “shine more light on the long-standing off-label use of PDT for lessening signs of photoaging. Like studies done before it, I think this adds an additional benefit to discuss for those who are considering PDT treatment for their actinic keratoses.”

Horton acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size and the fact that physician graders were not blinded to which images were pre- and post-treatment, “which could introduce an element of bias in the data,” he said. “But this being an unfunded project born out of clinical observation, we hope to later expand its size. Furthermore, we invite other physicians to join us to better study these effects and to design protocols that minimize adverse effects and maximize clinical outcomes.”

His co-authors were Milan Hirpara; Sarah Choe; Joel Cohen, MD; and Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD.

No relevant disclosures were reported. Green had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) — a treatment most commonly thought of for field cancerization — is an effective tool for reducing rhytides and lentigines, results from a small prospective study showed.

“Our study helps capture and quantify a phenomenon that clinicians who use PDT in their practice have already noticed: Patients experience a visible improvement across several cosmetically important metrics including but not limited to fine lines, wrinkles, and skin tightness following PDT,” one of the study authors, Luke Horton, MD, a fourth-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session.

Dr. Horton

For the study, 11 patients underwent a 120-minute incubation period with 17% 5-aminolevulinic acid over the face, followed by visible blue light PDT exposure for 16 minutes, to reduce rhytides. The researchers used a Vectra imaging system to capture three-dimensional images of the patients before the procedure and during the follow-up. Three dermatologists analyzed the pre-procedure and post-procedure images and used a validated five-point Merz wrinkle severity scale to grade various regions of the face including the forehead, glabella, lateral canthal rhytides, melolabial folds, nasolabial folds, and perioral rhytides.

They also used a five-point solar lentigines scale to evaluate the change in degree of pigmentation and quantity of age spots as well as the change in rhytid severity before and after PDT and the change in the seven-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) to gauge overall improvement of fine lines and wrinkles.

After a mean follow-up of 4.25 months, rhytid severity among the 11 patients was reduced by an average of 0.65 points on the Merz scale, with an SD of 0.20. Broken down by region, rhytid severity scores decreased by 0.2 points (SD, 0.42) for the forehead, 0.7 points (SD, 0.48) for the glabella and lateral canthal rhytides, 0.88 points (SD, 0.35) for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides, and 0.8 points (SD, 0.42) for the nasolabial folds. (The researchers excluded ratings for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides in two patients with beards.)

In other findings, solar lentigines grading showed an average reduction of 1 point (SD, 0.45), while the GAIS score improved by 1 or more for every patient, with an average of score of 1.45 (SD, 0.52), showing that some degree of improvement in facial rhytides was noted for all patients following PDT.

“The degree of improvement as measured by our independent physician graders was impressive and not far off from those reported with CO₂ ablative laser,” Horton said. “Further, the effect was not isolated to actinic keratoses but extended to improved appearance of fine lines, some deep lines, and lentigines. Although we are not implying that PDT is superior to and should replace lasers or other energy-based devices, it does provide a real, measurable cosmetic benefit.”

Clinicians, he added, can use these findings “to counsel their patients when discussing field cancerization treatment options, especially for patients who may be hesitant to undergo PDT as it can be a painful therapy with a considerable downtime for some.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings “shine more light on the long-standing off-label use of PDT for lessening signs of photoaging. Like studies done before it, I think this adds an additional benefit to discuss for those who are considering PDT treatment for their actinic keratoses.”

Horton acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size and the fact that physician graders were not blinded to which images were pre- and post-treatment, “which could introduce an element of bias in the data,” he said. “But this being an unfunded project born out of clinical observation, we hope to later expand its size. Furthermore, we invite other physicians to join us to better study these effects and to design protocols that minimize adverse effects and maximize clinical outcomes.”

His co-authors were Milan Hirpara; Sarah Choe; Joel Cohen, MD; and Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD.

No relevant disclosures were reported. Green had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment with ritlecitinib sustained hair regrowth through week 48 in patients with alopecia areata (AA), and up to one third of nonresponders at week 24 also achieved responses by week 48.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial (ALLEGRO) and included 718 adults and adolescents aged 12 or older with severe AA (Severity of Alopecia Tool [SALT] score ≥ 50).
• Patients received various doses of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor ritlecitinib, with or without a 4-week loading dose, including 200/50 mg, 200/30 mg, 50 mg, or 30 mg, with or without a 4-week loading dose for up to 24 weeks and continued to receive their assigned maintenance dose.
• Researchers assessed sustained clinical responses at week 48 for those who had achieved SALT scores ≤ 20 and ≤ 10 at 24 weeks, and nonresponders at week 24 were assessed for responses through week 48.
• Adverse events were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients on ritlecitinib who had responded at week 24, SALT responses ≤ 20 were sustained in 85.2%-100% of patients through week 48. Similar results were seen among patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 (68.8%-91.7%) and improvements in eyebrow (70.4%-96.9%) or eyelash (52.4%-94.1%) assessment scores.
• Among those who were nonresponders at week 24, 22.2%-33.7% achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 and 19.8%-25.5% achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 by week 48. Similarly, among those with no eyebrow or eyelash responses at week 24, 19.7%-32.8% and 16.7%-30.2% had improved eyebrow or eyelash assessment scores, respectively, at week 48.
• Between weeks 24 and 48, adverse events were reported in 74%-93% of patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 20, most were mild or moderate; two serious events were reported but deemed unrelated to treatment. The safety profile was similar across all subgroups.
• No deaths, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, opportunistic infections, or herpes zoster infections were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The majority of ritlecitinib-treated patients with AA who met target clinical response based on scalp, eyebrow, or eyelash regrowth at week 24 sustained their response through week 48 with continued treatment,” the authors wrote. “Some patients, including those with more extensive hair loss, may require ritlecitinib treatment beyond 6 months to achieve target clinical response,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melissa Piliang, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, and was published online on October 17 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by its post hoc nature, small sample size in each treatment group, and a follow-up period of only 48 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Pfizer. Piliang disclosed being a consultant or investigator for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Procter & Gamble. Six authors were employees or shareholders of or received salary from Pfizer. Other authors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside this work, including Pfizer.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment with ritlecitinib sustained hair regrowth through week 48 in patients with alopecia areata (AA), and up to one third of nonresponders at week 24 also achieved responses by week 48.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial (ALLEGRO) and included 718 adults and adolescents aged 12 or older with severe AA (Severity of Alopecia Tool [SALT] score ≥ 50).
• Patients received various doses of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor ritlecitinib, with or without a 4-week loading dose, including 200/50 mg, 200/30 mg, 50 mg, or 30 mg, with or without a 4-week loading dose for up to 24 weeks and continued to receive their assigned maintenance dose.
• Researchers assessed sustained clinical responses at week 48 for those who had achieved SALT scores ≤ 20 and ≤ 10 at 24 weeks, and nonresponders at week 24 were assessed for responses through week 48.
• Adverse events were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients on ritlecitinib who had responded at week 24, SALT responses ≤ 20 were sustained in 85.2%-100% of patients through week 48. Similar results were seen among patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 (68.8%-91.7%) and improvements in eyebrow (70.4%-96.9%) or eyelash (52.4%-94.1%) assessment scores.
• Among those who were nonresponders at week 24, 22.2%-33.7% achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 and 19.8%-25.5% achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 by week 48. Similarly, among those with no eyebrow or eyelash responses at week 24, 19.7%-32.8% and 16.7%-30.2% had improved eyebrow or eyelash assessment scores, respectively, at week 48.
• Between weeks 24 and 48, adverse events were reported in 74%-93% of patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 20, most were mild or moderate; two serious events were reported but deemed unrelated to treatment. The safety profile was similar across all subgroups.
• No deaths, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, opportunistic infections, or herpes zoster infections were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The majority of ritlecitinib-treated patients with AA who met target clinical response based on scalp, eyebrow, or eyelash regrowth at week 24 sustained their response through week 48 with continued treatment,” the authors wrote. “Some patients, including those with more extensive hair loss, may require ritlecitinib treatment beyond 6 months to achieve target clinical response,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melissa Piliang, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, and was published online on October 17 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by its post hoc nature, small sample size in each treatment group, and a follow-up period of only 48 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Pfizer. Piliang disclosed being a consultant or investigator for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Procter & Gamble. Six authors were employees or shareholders of or received salary from Pfizer. Other authors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside this work, including Pfizer.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment with ritlecitinib sustained hair regrowth through week 48 in patients with alopecia areata (AA), and up to one third of nonresponders at week 24 also achieved responses by week 48.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial (ALLEGRO) and included 718 adults and adolescents aged 12 or older with severe AA (Severity of Alopecia Tool [SALT] score ≥ 50).
• Patients received various doses of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor ritlecitinib, with or without a 4-week loading dose, including 200/50 mg, 200/30 mg, 50 mg, or 30 mg, with or without a 4-week loading dose for up to 24 weeks and continued to receive their assigned maintenance dose.
• Researchers assessed sustained clinical responses at week 48 for those who had achieved SALT scores ≤ 20 and ≤ 10 at 24 weeks, and nonresponders at week 24 were assessed for responses through week 48.
• Adverse events were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients on ritlecitinib who had responded at week 24, SALT responses ≤ 20 were sustained in 85.2%-100% of patients through week 48. Similar results were seen among patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 (68.8%-91.7%) and improvements in eyebrow (70.4%-96.9%) or eyelash (52.4%-94.1%) assessment scores.
• Among those who were nonresponders at week 24, 22.2%-33.7% achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 and 19.8%-25.5% achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 by week 48. Similarly, among those with no eyebrow or eyelash responses at week 24, 19.7%-32.8% and 16.7%-30.2% had improved eyebrow or eyelash assessment scores, respectively, at week 48.
• Between weeks 24 and 48, adverse events were reported in 74%-93% of patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 20, most were mild or moderate; two serious events were reported but deemed unrelated to treatment. The safety profile was similar across all subgroups.
• No deaths, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, opportunistic infections, or herpes zoster infections were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The majority of ritlecitinib-treated patients with AA who met target clinical response based on scalp, eyebrow, or eyelash regrowth at week 24 sustained their response through week 48 with continued treatment,” the authors wrote. “Some patients, including those with more extensive hair loss, may require ritlecitinib treatment beyond 6 months to achieve target clinical response,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melissa Piliang, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, and was published online on October 17 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by its post hoc nature, small sample size in each treatment group, and a follow-up period of only 48 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Pfizer. Piliang disclosed being a consultant or investigator for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Procter & Gamble. Six authors were employees or shareholders of or received salary from Pfizer. Other authors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside this work, including Pfizer.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM — Prurigo nodularis (PN), an itchy, highly symptomatic disease that can cause severe impairments in quality of life, may gain a third therapy if promising data on povorcitinib presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress are further validated.

“We now have a pipeline of clinical studies in PN. Who would have even thought that a few years ago,” said Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chair, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. That is a remarkable turn of events for a difficult disease, he added.

Dr. Kwatra

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13, was the first treatment approved for PN by the Food and Drug Administration 2 years ago. Approval of nemolizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets IL-31, a cytokine strongly implicated in the itch response, followed in August 2024. Povorcitinib, which targets Janus kinase 1 (JAK1), is on track to be the third.

New data on both nemolizumab and povorcitinib were presented in late breaking news sessions at EADV.

For povorcitinib, a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Kwatra presented extended phase 2 results through 40 weeks at a late-breaker session at the EADV meeting. They follow 16-week data from a randomized study presented earlier this year.

Of the 146 patients followed in the original 16-week randomized trial, which compared 15, 45, and 75 mg of oral povorcitinib once daily against placebo, 126 entered an extension in which all patients were treated with active therapy. In this single-blind phase, those who were responders at 16 weeks received 45 mg povorcitinib, and those who were nonresponders received 75 mg povorcitinib.

At 16 weeks, all doses were superior to placebo in achieving at least a 4-point reduction on the Itch Numerical Rating Scale (NRS4) and the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear), as well as in a composite endpoint of both. However, even though the lowest dose of povorcitinib was active, there was a “very clear dose response” demonstrated in speed of response and proportion of responders, according to Dr. Kwatra.

On the 75-mg dose, the time to improvement was a median of 19 days, while the median times to improvement were 35 days on the 45-mg dose and 58 days on the 15-mg dose.

Among povorcitinib responders, 96% had met the NRS4 response at the time they entered the extension study. During the extension study, the proportion of responders who maintained this level of itch control hovered around 90% for the duration. The proportion was 89% at week 40.

The proportion of responders at 16 weeks achieving IGA 0/1, signifying clear or almost clear, was 93%. Again, the rate hovered around 90% for the full 40 weeks. At week 40, the proportion at this outcome was also 89%. The composite outcome among responders persisted at about 80% for most of the follow-up but fell to 63% at the last follow-up.

Among nonresponders who transitioned to 75 mg povorcitinib for the extension period, the NSR4 response rates climbed within 4 weeks to approximately 60% and reached 70% at week 40. For the endpoint of IGA 0/1, rates rose incrementally among the nonresponders over time, reaching 51% at week 40. The composite endpoint was reached at 40 weeks by 41% of nonresponders switched to 75 mg during the 24-week extension.

The results at 40 weeks were highly encouraging, according to Dr. Kwatra, who reported there were no surprises in regard to safety during the extension period. He reported some transient reductions in hemoglobin and infections that resolved, but there were no cardiac events or other more serious events that have been previously associated with JAK inhibitors during the 40-week study period.

When asked if there might be an advantage for povorcitinib relative to the monoclonal antibodies in regard to speed of onset, Dr. Kwatra said that there are no comparative data. Like previous experience with dupilumab, some patients responded rapidly with povorcitinib, but others took longer to achieve benefit.

This variability in response is consistent with the growing evidence that PN is a heterogeneous disease, according to Dr. Kwatra. With multiple up-regulated cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of PN, he suggested that more treatment options would be useful. When it comes to the multiple molecular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of PN, he said, “patients can be at a different edge of a spectrum.”

In other evidence suggesting that more options are needed, another late-breaking news study at the 2024 EADV congress underlined the fact that PN is a chronic disease. Presented by Franz J. Legat, MD, professor of dermatology at the Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria, the data involved a withdrawal evaluation nested in a long-term extension (LTE) of the OLYMPIA pivotal trials with nemolizumab.

After 52 weeks in the LTE, 34 patients entered the OLYMPIA DURABILITY study, in which they were randomized to withdrawal or to continue on nemolizumab on an every 4-week dosing schedule.

The relapse rate over 24 weeks was 16.7% (3 of 18 patients) in the continuous nemolizumab arm and 75% (12 of 16 patients) in the withdrawal arm. The median time to relapse was 112.5 days for those in the withdrawal arm and was not reached during follow-up in the nemolizumab arm.

Praising the patients who were willing to risk PN relapse by entering this randomized trial, Dr. Legat said that the study shows a relatively high risk for relapse within months of treatment withdrawal even after good PN control over a period of 52 weeks.

“These data clearly support continuous nemolizumab beyond 52 weeks,” he said.

Dr. Kwatra reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biotherapeutics, Aslan, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Incyte, which is developing povorcitinib for PN. Dr. Legat reported financial relationships with Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Trevi, Vifor, and Galderma, which provided funding for the nemolizumab studies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM — Prurigo nodularis (PN), an itchy, highly symptomatic disease that can cause severe impairments in quality of life, may gain a third therapy if promising data on povorcitinib presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress are further validated.

“We now have a pipeline of clinical studies in PN. Who would have even thought that a few years ago,” said Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chair, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. That is a remarkable turn of events for a difficult disease, he added.

Dr. Kwatra

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13, was the first treatment approved for PN by the Food and Drug Administration 2 years ago. Approval of nemolizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets IL-31, a cytokine strongly implicated in the itch response, followed in August 2024. Povorcitinib, which targets Janus kinase 1 (JAK1), is on track to be the third.

New data on both nemolizumab and povorcitinib were presented in late breaking news sessions at EADV.

For povorcitinib, a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Kwatra presented extended phase 2 results through 40 weeks at a late-breaker session at the EADV meeting. They follow 16-week data from a randomized study presented earlier this year.

Of the 146 patients followed in the original 16-week randomized trial, which compared 15, 45, and 75 mg of oral povorcitinib once daily against placebo, 126 entered an extension in which all patients were treated with active therapy. In this single-blind phase, those who were responders at 16 weeks received 45 mg povorcitinib, and those who were nonresponders received 75 mg povorcitinib.

At 16 weeks, all doses were superior to placebo in achieving at least a 4-point reduction on the Itch Numerical Rating Scale (NRS4) and the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear), as well as in a composite endpoint of both. However, even though the lowest dose of povorcitinib was active, there was a “very clear dose response” demonstrated in speed of response and proportion of responders, according to Dr. Kwatra.

On the 75-mg dose, the time to improvement was a median of 19 days, while the median times to improvement were 35 days on the 45-mg dose and 58 days on the 15-mg dose.

Among povorcitinib responders, 96% had met the NRS4 response at the time they entered the extension study. During the extension study, the proportion of responders who maintained this level of itch control hovered around 90% for the duration. The proportion was 89% at week 40.

The proportion of responders at 16 weeks achieving IGA 0/1, signifying clear or almost clear, was 93%. Again, the rate hovered around 90% for the full 40 weeks. At week 40, the proportion at this outcome was also 89%. The composite outcome among responders persisted at about 80% for most of the follow-up but fell to 63% at the last follow-up.

Among nonresponders who transitioned to 75 mg povorcitinib for the extension period, the NSR4 response rates climbed within 4 weeks to approximately 60% and reached 70% at week 40. For the endpoint of IGA 0/1, rates rose incrementally among the nonresponders over time, reaching 51% at week 40. The composite endpoint was reached at 40 weeks by 41% of nonresponders switched to 75 mg during the 24-week extension.

The results at 40 weeks were highly encouraging, according to Dr. Kwatra, who reported there were no surprises in regard to safety during the extension period. He reported some transient reductions in hemoglobin and infections that resolved, but there were no cardiac events or other more serious events that have been previously associated with JAK inhibitors during the 40-week study period.

When asked if there might be an advantage for povorcitinib relative to the monoclonal antibodies in regard to speed of onset, Dr. Kwatra said that there are no comparative data. Like previous experience with dupilumab, some patients responded rapidly with povorcitinib, but others took longer to achieve benefit.

This variability in response is consistent with the growing evidence that PN is a heterogeneous disease, according to Dr. Kwatra. With multiple up-regulated cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of PN, he suggested that more treatment options would be useful. When it comes to the multiple molecular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of PN, he said, “patients can be at a different edge of a spectrum.”

In other evidence suggesting that more options are needed, another late-breaking news study at the 2024 EADV congress underlined the fact that PN is a chronic disease. Presented by Franz J. Legat, MD, professor of dermatology at the Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria, the data involved a withdrawal evaluation nested in a long-term extension (LTE) of the OLYMPIA pivotal trials with nemolizumab.

After 52 weeks in the LTE, 34 patients entered the OLYMPIA DURABILITY study, in which they were randomized to withdrawal or to continue on nemolizumab on an every 4-week dosing schedule.

The relapse rate over 24 weeks was 16.7% (3 of 18 patients) in the continuous nemolizumab arm and 75% (12 of 16 patients) in the withdrawal arm. The median time to relapse was 112.5 days for those in the withdrawal arm and was not reached during follow-up in the nemolizumab arm.

Praising the patients who were willing to risk PN relapse by entering this randomized trial, Dr. Legat said that the study shows a relatively high risk for relapse within months of treatment withdrawal even after good PN control over a period of 52 weeks.

“These data clearly support continuous nemolizumab beyond 52 weeks,” he said.

Dr. Kwatra reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biotherapeutics, Aslan, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Incyte, which is developing povorcitinib for PN. Dr. Legat reported financial relationships with Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Trevi, Vifor, and Galderma, which provided funding for the nemolizumab studies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM — Prurigo nodularis (PN), an itchy, highly symptomatic disease that can cause severe impairments in quality of life, may gain a third therapy if promising data on povorcitinib presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress are further validated.

“We now have a pipeline of clinical studies in PN. Who would have even thought that a few years ago,” said Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chair, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. That is a remarkable turn of events for a difficult disease, he added.

Dr. Kwatra

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13, was the first treatment approved for PN by the Food and Drug Administration 2 years ago. Approval of nemolizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets IL-31, a cytokine strongly implicated in the itch response, followed in August 2024. Povorcitinib, which targets Janus kinase 1 (JAK1), is on track to be the third.

New data on both nemolizumab and povorcitinib were presented in late breaking news sessions at EADV.

For povorcitinib, a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Kwatra presented extended phase 2 results through 40 weeks at a late-breaker session at the EADV meeting. They follow 16-week data from a randomized study presented earlier this year.

Of the 146 patients followed in the original 16-week randomized trial, which compared 15, 45, and 75 mg of oral povorcitinib once daily against placebo, 126 entered an extension in which all patients were treated with active therapy. In this single-blind phase, those who were responders at 16 weeks received 45 mg povorcitinib, and those who were nonresponders received 75 mg povorcitinib.

At 16 weeks, all doses were superior to placebo in achieving at least a 4-point reduction on the Itch Numerical Rating Scale (NRS4) and the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear), as well as in a composite endpoint of both. However, even though the lowest dose of povorcitinib was active, there was a “very clear dose response” demonstrated in speed of response and proportion of responders, according to Dr. Kwatra.

On the 75-mg dose, the time to improvement was a median of 19 days, while the median times to improvement were 35 days on the 45-mg dose and 58 days on the 15-mg dose.

Among povorcitinib responders, 96% had met the NRS4 response at the time they entered the extension study. During the extension study, the proportion of responders who maintained this level of itch control hovered around 90% for the duration. The proportion was 89% at week 40.

The proportion of responders at 16 weeks achieving IGA 0/1, signifying clear or almost clear, was 93%. Again, the rate hovered around 90% for the full 40 weeks. At week 40, the proportion at this outcome was also 89%. The composite outcome among responders persisted at about 80% for most of the follow-up but fell to 63% at the last follow-up.

Among nonresponders who transitioned to 75 mg povorcitinib for the extension period, the NSR4 response rates climbed within 4 weeks to approximately 60% and reached 70% at week 40. For the endpoint of IGA 0/1, rates rose incrementally among the nonresponders over time, reaching 51% at week 40. The composite endpoint was reached at 40 weeks by 41% of nonresponders switched to 75 mg during the 24-week extension.

The results at 40 weeks were highly encouraging, according to Dr. Kwatra, who reported there were no surprises in regard to safety during the extension period. He reported some transient reductions in hemoglobin and infections that resolved, but there were no cardiac events or other more serious events that have been previously associated with JAK inhibitors during the 40-week study period.

When asked if there might be an advantage for povorcitinib relative to the monoclonal antibodies in regard to speed of onset, Dr. Kwatra said that there are no comparative data. Like previous experience with dupilumab, some patients responded rapidly with povorcitinib, but others took longer to achieve benefit.

This variability in response is consistent with the growing evidence that PN is a heterogeneous disease, according to Dr. Kwatra. With multiple up-regulated cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of PN, he suggested that more treatment options would be useful. When it comes to the multiple molecular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of PN, he said, “patients can be at a different edge of a spectrum.”

In other evidence suggesting that more options are needed, another late-breaking news study at the 2024 EADV congress underlined the fact that PN is a chronic disease. Presented by Franz J. Legat, MD, professor of dermatology at the Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria, the data involved a withdrawal evaluation nested in a long-term extension (LTE) of the OLYMPIA pivotal trials with nemolizumab.

After 52 weeks in the LTE, 34 patients entered the OLYMPIA DURABILITY study, in which they were randomized to withdrawal or to continue on nemolizumab on an every 4-week dosing schedule.

The relapse rate over 24 weeks was 16.7% (3 of 18 patients) in the continuous nemolizumab arm and 75% (12 of 16 patients) in the withdrawal arm. The median time to relapse was 112.5 days for those in the withdrawal arm and was not reached during follow-up in the nemolizumab arm.

Praising the patients who were willing to risk PN relapse by entering this randomized trial, Dr. Legat said that the study shows a relatively high risk for relapse within months of treatment withdrawal even after good PN control over a period of 52 weeks.

“These data clearly support continuous nemolizumab beyond 52 weeks,” he said.

Dr. Kwatra reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biotherapeutics, Aslan, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Incyte, which is developing povorcitinib for PN. Dr. Legat reported financial relationships with Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Trevi, Vifor, and Galderma, which provided funding for the nemolizumab studies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.