Dermatology News

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — When patients with vitiligo see Jessica Shiu, MD, PhD, for the first time, some mention that prior healthcare providers have told them that vitiligo is merely a cosmetic issue — much to her dismay.

“Vitiligo is not a cosmetic disease,” Dr. Shiu, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “It is associated with significant depression, stigmatization, and low self-esteem. I have patients who say that vitiligo has affected their marriage ... In certain cultures, it also affects their job prospects.”

As the most common pigmentary disorder, vitiligo is an autoimmune condition that often results in the recruitment of CD8+ T cells into the skin. These cells destroy melanocytes, depleting melanocytes in the epidermis. “Over time, this results in milky white patches of skin that we often see in our patients,” Dr. Shiu said.

Dr. Shiu

“Another sign of active disease is when patients tell you that their vitiligo is expanding rapidly,” Dr. Shiu added. “Stable vitiligo is more difficult to define. Many patients think their lesions don’t change, but we’re now appreciating that there can be some sites in those patients such as the hands and feet that are more susceptible to change in activity.” In general, she noted, vitiligo is considered stable when there is no change in activity for at least 12 months, and “lesions are usually completely depigmented with sharp borders.”

The level of vitiligo disease activity drives medical management. For patients with nonsegmental vitiligo who have clinical signs of active disease, the first goal is to stabilize the active disease and stop further spread of depigmentation. “This is key because losing pigment can occur very quickly, but gaining pigment back is a very slow process,” she said. Stabilization involves suppressing immune responses with topical steroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, or 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, a JAK inhibitor that became the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved pharmacologic treatment for nonsegmental vitiligo, in 2022, for patients aged 12 years or older.

“The choice here depends somewhat on insurance coverage and shared decision-making with the patient,” Dr. Shiu said. Meanwhile, clinical trials evaluating the effect of the oral JAK inhibitors ritlecitinib, upadacitinib, povorcitinib, and baricitinib on vitiligo are underway.

Combining Phototherapy With Topical Treatment

A mainstay therapy for nonsegmental vitiligo is phototherapy, which can induce the migration of melanocyte stem cells from hair follicles. “There’s good data to show that combining topical treatment with phototherapy can augment the repigmentation that you see,” she said. “So if it’s possible, try to add phototherapy for your vitiligo patients, but sometimes, logistics for that are a challenge.”

Discussing treatment expectations with patients is key because it can take up to 1 year to see a significant response with topical immunosuppressants and narrowband ultraviolet B treatment. The head and neck areas are often the first sites to repigment, she said, followed by the extremities or the trunk. “The hands and feet are generally last; they are usually the most stubborn areas,” Dr. Shiu said. “Even when you do see repigmentation, it usually happens on the dorsal surfaces. The tips of the fingers and toes are difficult to repigment. Luckily, the face is one of the top responders, so that helps a lot.”

While some treatment efforts result in “complete and beautiful” repigmentation, she added, many yield uneven and incomplete results. “We don’t understand why repigmentation occurs in some areas but not in others,” she said. “We don’t have any biomarkers for treatment response. That is something we are looking into.”

For a patient with rapidly progressing active disease, consider an oral steroid mini-pulse 2 consecutive days per week for a maximum of 3-6 months. “I usually recommend that patients do this on Saturday and Sunday,” Dr. Shiu said. “Studies have shown this strategy can halt progression in 85%-91% of cases if patients are on it for at least 3 months.”

Relapse after successful repigmentation occurs in about 40% of cases following discontinuation of treatment, so she recommends biweekly application of 0.1% tacrolimus ointment as maintenance therapy. “Studies have shown this is enough to decrease the relapse rate to around 9%,” she said.
 

Tissue, Cellular Grafts

Surgical repigmentation strategies rely on transplanting normal skin to areas affected by vitiligo. In general, more than 50% of patients achieve more than 80% repigmentation. Options are divided into tissue grafts vs cellular grafts. “The old methods are tissue grafting such as punch grafting, tissue blister grafting, and spit thickness grafting, which can treat limited areas of skin,” Dr. Shiu said. Newer approaches include cellular grafting using the melanocyte-keratinocyte transplantation procedure, which can treat larger areas of skin.

The main drawback of this approach is that it is expensive and there is no insurance code for it, “but I hope that this becomes an option for our patients in the future because data indicate that repigmentation is maintained for up to 72 months after treatment,” she said.

In June 2023, an autologous cell harvesting device known as RECELL received FDA approval for repigmentation of stable vitiligo lesions. According to a press release from the manufacturer, AVITA Medical, a clinician “prepares and delivers autologous skin cells from pigmented skin to stable depigmented areas, offering a safe and effective treatment for vitiligo.”

Dr. Shiu disclosed that she received research support from AbbVie.
 

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — When patients with vitiligo see Jessica Shiu, MD, PhD, for the first time, some mention that prior healthcare providers have told them that vitiligo is merely a cosmetic issue — much to her dismay.

“Vitiligo is not a cosmetic disease,” Dr. Shiu, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “It is associated with significant depression, stigmatization, and low self-esteem. I have patients who say that vitiligo has affected their marriage ... In certain cultures, it also affects their job prospects.”

As the most common pigmentary disorder, vitiligo is an autoimmune condition that often results in the recruitment of CD8+ T cells into the skin. These cells destroy melanocytes, depleting melanocytes in the epidermis. “Over time, this results in milky white patches of skin that we often see in our patients,” Dr. Shiu said.

Dr. Shiu

“Another sign of active disease is when patients tell you that their vitiligo is expanding rapidly,” Dr. Shiu added. “Stable vitiligo is more difficult to define. Many patients think their lesions don’t change, but we’re now appreciating that there can be some sites in those patients such as the hands and feet that are more susceptible to change in activity.” In general, she noted, vitiligo is considered stable when there is no change in activity for at least 12 months, and “lesions are usually completely depigmented with sharp borders.”

The level of vitiligo disease activity drives medical management. For patients with nonsegmental vitiligo who have clinical signs of active disease, the first goal is to stabilize the active disease and stop further spread of depigmentation. “This is key because losing pigment can occur very quickly, but gaining pigment back is a very slow process,” she said. Stabilization involves suppressing immune responses with topical steroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, or 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, a JAK inhibitor that became the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved pharmacologic treatment for nonsegmental vitiligo, in 2022, for patients aged 12 years or older.

“The choice here depends somewhat on insurance coverage and shared decision-making with the patient,” Dr. Shiu said. Meanwhile, clinical trials evaluating the effect of the oral JAK inhibitors ritlecitinib, upadacitinib, povorcitinib, and baricitinib on vitiligo are underway.

Combining Phototherapy With Topical Treatment

A mainstay therapy for nonsegmental vitiligo is phototherapy, which can induce the migration of melanocyte stem cells from hair follicles. “There’s good data to show that combining topical treatment with phototherapy can augment the repigmentation that you see,” she said. “So if it’s possible, try to add phototherapy for your vitiligo patients, but sometimes, logistics for that are a challenge.”

Discussing treatment expectations with patients is key because it can take up to 1 year to see a significant response with topical immunosuppressants and narrowband ultraviolet B treatment. The head and neck areas are often the first sites to repigment, she said, followed by the extremities or the trunk. “The hands and feet are generally last; they are usually the most stubborn areas,” Dr. Shiu said. “Even when you do see repigmentation, it usually happens on the dorsal surfaces. The tips of the fingers and toes are difficult to repigment. Luckily, the face is one of the top responders, so that helps a lot.”

While some treatment efforts result in “complete and beautiful” repigmentation, she added, many yield uneven and incomplete results. “We don’t understand why repigmentation occurs in some areas but not in others,” she said. “We don’t have any biomarkers for treatment response. That is something we are looking into.”

For a patient with rapidly progressing active disease, consider an oral steroid mini-pulse 2 consecutive days per week for a maximum of 3-6 months. “I usually recommend that patients do this on Saturday and Sunday,” Dr. Shiu said. “Studies have shown this strategy can halt progression in 85%-91% of cases if patients are on it for at least 3 months.”

Relapse after successful repigmentation occurs in about 40% of cases following discontinuation of treatment, so she recommends biweekly application of 0.1% tacrolimus ointment as maintenance therapy. “Studies have shown this is enough to decrease the relapse rate to around 9%,” she said.
 

Tissue, Cellular Grafts

Surgical repigmentation strategies rely on transplanting normal skin to areas affected by vitiligo. In general, more than 50% of patients achieve more than 80% repigmentation. Options are divided into tissue grafts vs cellular grafts. “The old methods are tissue grafting such as punch grafting, tissue blister grafting, and spit thickness grafting, which can treat limited areas of skin,” Dr. Shiu said. Newer approaches include cellular grafting using the melanocyte-keratinocyte transplantation procedure, which can treat larger areas of skin.

The main drawback of this approach is that it is expensive and there is no insurance code for it, “but I hope that this becomes an option for our patients in the future because data indicate that repigmentation is maintained for up to 72 months after treatment,” she said.

In June 2023, an autologous cell harvesting device known as RECELL received FDA approval for repigmentation of stable vitiligo lesions. According to a press release from the manufacturer, AVITA Medical, a clinician “prepares and delivers autologous skin cells from pigmented skin to stable depigmented areas, offering a safe and effective treatment for vitiligo.”

Dr. Shiu disclosed that she received research support from AbbVie.
 

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — When patients with vitiligo see Jessica Shiu, MD, PhD, for the first time, some mention that prior healthcare providers have told them that vitiligo is merely a cosmetic issue — much to her dismay.

“Vitiligo is not a cosmetic disease,” Dr. Shiu, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “It is associated with significant depression, stigmatization, and low self-esteem. I have patients who say that vitiligo has affected their marriage ... In certain cultures, it also affects their job prospects.”

As the most common pigmentary disorder, vitiligo is an autoimmune condition that often results in the recruitment of CD8+ T cells into the skin. These cells destroy melanocytes, depleting melanocytes in the epidermis. “Over time, this results in milky white patches of skin that we often see in our patients,” Dr. Shiu said.

Dr. Shiu

“Another sign of active disease is when patients tell you that their vitiligo is expanding rapidly,” Dr. Shiu added. “Stable vitiligo is more difficult to define. Many patients think their lesions don’t change, but we’re now appreciating that there can be some sites in those patients such as the hands and feet that are more susceptible to change in activity.” In general, she noted, vitiligo is considered stable when there is no change in activity for at least 12 months, and “lesions are usually completely depigmented with sharp borders.”

The level of vitiligo disease activity drives medical management. For patients with nonsegmental vitiligo who have clinical signs of active disease, the first goal is to stabilize the active disease and stop further spread of depigmentation. “This is key because losing pigment can occur very quickly, but gaining pigment back is a very slow process,” she said. Stabilization involves suppressing immune responses with topical steroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, or 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, a JAK inhibitor that became the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved pharmacologic treatment for nonsegmental vitiligo, in 2022, for patients aged 12 years or older.

“The choice here depends somewhat on insurance coverage and shared decision-making with the patient,” Dr. Shiu said. Meanwhile, clinical trials evaluating the effect of the oral JAK inhibitors ritlecitinib, upadacitinib, povorcitinib, and baricitinib on vitiligo are underway.

Combining Phototherapy With Topical Treatment

A mainstay therapy for nonsegmental vitiligo is phototherapy, which can induce the migration of melanocyte stem cells from hair follicles. “There’s good data to show that combining topical treatment with phototherapy can augment the repigmentation that you see,” she said. “So if it’s possible, try to add phototherapy for your vitiligo patients, but sometimes, logistics for that are a challenge.”

Discussing treatment expectations with patients is key because it can take up to 1 year to see a significant response with topical immunosuppressants and narrowband ultraviolet B treatment. The head and neck areas are often the first sites to repigment, she said, followed by the extremities or the trunk. “The hands and feet are generally last; they are usually the most stubborn areas,” Dr. Shiu said. “Even when you do see repigmentation, it usually happens on the dorsal surfaces. The tips of the fingers and toes are difficult to repigment. Luckily, the face is one of the top responders, so that helps a lot.”

While some treatment efforts result in “complete and beautiful” repigmentation, she added, many yield uneven and incomplete results. “We don’t understand why repigmentation occurs in some areas but not in others,” she said. “We don’t have any biomarkers for treatment response. That is something we are looking into.”

For a patient with rapidly progressing active disease, consider an oral steroid mini-pulse 2 consecutive days per week for a maximum of 3-6 months. “I usually recommend that patients do this on Saturday and Sunday,” Dr. Shiu said. “Studies have shown this strategy can halt progression in 85%-91% of cases if patients are on it for at least 3 months.”

Relapse after successful repigmentation occurs in about 40% of cases following discontinuation of treatment, so she recommends biweekly application of 0.1% tacrolimus ointment as maintenance therapy. “Studies have shown this is enough to decrease the relapse rate to around 9%,” she said.
 

Tissue, Cellular Grafts

Surgical repigmentation strategies rely on transplanting normal skin to areas affected by vitiligo. In general, more than 50% of patients achieve more than 80% repigmentation. Options are divided into tissue grafts vs cellular grafts. “The old methods are tissue grafting such as punch grafting, tissue blister grafting, and spit thickness grafting, which can treat limited areas of skin,” Dr. Shiu said. Newer approaches include cellular grafting using the melanocyte-keratinocyte transplantation procedure, which can treat larger areas of skin.

The main drawback of this approach is that it is expensive and there is no insurance code for it, “but I hope that this becomes an option for our patients in the future because data indicate that repigmentation is maintained for up to 72 months after treatment,” she said.

In June 2023, an autologous cell harvesting device known as RECELL received FDA approval for repigmentation of stable vitiligo lesions. According to a press release from the manufacturer, AVITA Medical, a clinician “prepares and delivers autologous skin cells from pigmented skin to stable depigmented areas, offering a safe and effective treatment for vitiligo.”

Dr. Shiu disclosed that she received research support from AbbVie.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In systemic sclerosis, Raynaud phenomenon is more severe at both high and low temperature extremes, according to new research.

BACKGROUND:

• Raynaud phenomenon, a condition that causes decreased blood flow to extremities, occurs in about 95% of individuals with systemic sclerosis.
• Episodes of Raynaud phenomenon can be triggered by cold exposure and ambient temperature changes.
• In severe cases, it can cause permanent damage to tissues of the fingers and toes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 2243 participants with Raynaud phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis from the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort.
• Participants completed past-week Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments using a 0-10 numerical rating scale at enrollment and every 3 months.
• The study included data from 20,233 Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments between April 15, 2014, and August 1, 2023.
• Researchers used average daily temperature from a weather site close to the participant’s recruiting center and mapped these ambient temperature changes to Raynaud’s phenomenon outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Raynaud’s phenomenon severity was highest at –25 °C (–13 °F), with assessment scores at 6.8 points out of 10.0, and lowest at 25 °C (77 °F), with scores at 2.6.
• Severity scores increased again at temperatures above 35 °C (95 °F), reaching a high of 5.6 out of 10 at 40 °C (104 °F).
• This spike at higher temperatures is presumably due to air conditioning, the authors said.
• In an accompanying commentary, Cutolo et al. posited that increased sweating and hypotension could also lead to a relative hypovolemic state in patients, causing Raynaud-like symptoms.

IN PRACTICE:

“Temperature-related variations in Raynaud’s phenomenon severity scores should be considered in clinical trials to account for normal within-season temperature fluctuations, enhancing the accuracy of treatment outcomes,” wrote Cutolo and colleagues in their commentary.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabrielle Virgili-Gervais, MSc, McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was published online on August 28 in The Lancet Rheumatology. The accompanying commentary, also published on August 28, was authored by Maurizio Cutolo, MD, and Elvis Hysa, MD, both of University of Genova, Italy, as well as Vanessa Smith, MD, PhD, of Ghent University in Ghent, Belgium.

LIMITATIONS:

The lower number of assessments at extreme temperatures (–25 °C and 40 °C) may affect the robustness of the findings at these ranges. The study did not account for vasodilator use, which could influence participants’ response to temperature. The study also did not account for other potential confounding factors such as sex, smoking status, psychosocial factors, and comorbid conditions like cardiovascular disease.

DISCLOSURES:

A variety of scleroderma-related patient advocacy groups helped to fund research on the SPIN cohort, in addition to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, and McGill University. Two authors reported having financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cutolo, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Hysa had no disclosures.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In systemic sclerosis, Raynaud phenomenon is more severe at both high and low temperature extremes, according to new research.

BACKGROUND:

• Raynaud phenomenon, a condition that causes decreased blood flow to extremities, occurs in about 95% of individuals with systemic sclerosis.
• Episodes of Raynaud phenomenon can be triggered by cold exposure and ambient temperature changes.
• In severe cases, it can cause permanent damage to tissues of the fingers and toes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 2243 participants with Raynaud phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis from the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort.
• Participants completed past-week Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments using a 0-10 numerical rating scale at enrollment and every 3 months.
• The study included data from 20,233 Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments between April 15, 2014, and August 1, 2023.
• Researchers used average daily temperature from a weather site close to the participant’s recruiting center and mapped these ambient temperature changes to Raynaud’s phenomenon outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Raynaud’s phenomenon severity was highest at –25 °C (–13 °F), with assessment scores at 6.8 points out of 10.0, and lowest at 25 °C (77 °F), with scores at 2.6.
• Severity scores increased again at temperatures above 35 °C (95 °F), reaching a high of 5.6 out of 10 at 40 °C (104 °F).
• This spike at higher temperatures is presumably due to air conditioning, the authors said.
• In an accompanying commentary, Cutolo et al. posited that increased sweating and hypotension could also lead to a relative hypovolemic state in patients, causing Raynaud-like symptoms.

IN PRACTICE:

“Temperature-related variations in Raynaud’s phenomenon severity scores should be considered in clinical trials to account for normal within-season temperature fluctuations, enhancing the accuracy of treatment outcomes,” wrote Cutolo and colleagues in their commentary.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabrielle Virgili-Gervais, MSc, McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was published online on August 28 in The Lancet Rheumatology. The accompanying commentary, also published on August 28, was authored by Maurizio Cutolo, MD, and Elvis Hysa, MD, both of University of Genova, Italy, as well as Vanessa Smith, MD, PhD, of Ghent University in Ghent, Belgium.

LIMITATIONS:

The lower number of assessments at extreme temperatures (–25 °C and 40 °C) may affect the robustness of the findings at these ranges. The study did not account for vasodilator use, which could influence participants’ response to temperature. The study also did not account for other potential confounding factors such as sex, smoking status, psychosocial factors, and comorbid conditions like cardiovascular disease.

DISCLOSURES:

A variety of scleroderma-related patient advocacy groups helped to fund research on the SPIN cohort, in addition to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, and McGill University. Two authors reported having financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cutolo, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Hysa had no disclosures.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In systemic sclerosis, Raynaud phenomenon is more severe at both high and low temperature extremes, according to new research.

BACKGROUND:

• Raynaud phenomenon, a condition that causes decreased blood flow to extremities, occurs in about 95% of individuals with systemic sclerosis.
• Episodes of Raynaud phenomenon can be triggered by cold exposure and ambient temperature changes.
• In severe cases, it can cause permanent damage to tissues of the fingers and toes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 2243 participants with Raynaud phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis from the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort.
• Participants completed past-week Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments using a 0-10 numerical rating scale at enrollment and every 3 months.
• The study included data from 20,233 Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments between April 15, 2014, and August 1, 2023.
• Researchers used average daily temperature from a weather site close to the participant’s recruiting center and mapped these ambient temperature changes to Raynaud’s phenomenon outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Raynaud’s phenomenon severity was highest at –25 °C (–13 °F), with assessment scores at 6.8 points out of 10.0, and lowest at 25 °C (77 °F), with scores at 2.6.
• Severity scores increased again at temperatures above 35 °C (95 °F), reaching a high of 5.6 out of 10 at 40 °C (104 °F).
• This spike at higher temperatures is presumably due to air conditioning, the authors said.
• In an accompanying commentary, Cutolo et al. posited that increased sweating and hypotension could also lead to a relative hypovolemic state in patients, causing Raynaud-like symptoms.

IN PRACTICE:

“Temperature-related variations in Raynaud’s phenomenon severity scores should be considered in clinical trials to account for normal within-season temperature fluctuations, enhancing the accuracy of treatment outcomes,” wrote Cutolo and colleagues in their commentary.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabrielle Virgili-Gervais, MSc, McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was published online on August 28 in The Lancet Rheumatology. The accompanying commentary, also published on August 28, was authored by Maurizio Cutolo, MD, and Elvis Hysa, MD, both of University of Genova, Italy, as well as Vanessa Smith, MD, PhD, of Ghent University in Ghent, Belgium.

LIMITATIONS:

The lower number of assessments at extreme temperatures (–25 °C and 40 °C) may affect the robustness of the findings at these ranges. The study did not account for vasodilator use, which could influence participants’ response to temperature. The study also did not account for other potential confounding factors such as sex, smoking status, psychosocial factors, and comorbid conditions like cardiovascular disease.

DISCLOSURES:

A variety of scleroderma-related patient advocacy groups helped to fund research on the SPIN cohort, in addition to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, and McGill University. Two authors reported having financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cutolo, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Hysa had no disclosures.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — Posting on social media may not be your cup of tea, but in the opinion of Jessica G. Labadie, MD, avoiding a presence on platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or YouTube means missing an opportunity to educate patients about dermatologic procedures and to dispel misinformation from nonmedical influencers.

“Over the past 2 decades, there has been a surge in social media use,” Dr. Labadie, a dermatologist who practices in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, said at the Controversies & Conversations in Laser & Cosmetic Surgery symposium. “Most of our patients use social media to find their doctors, and it plays a role in how our patients form their decision about whether to have a cosmetic procedure or not. Doctors, especially dermatologists, continue to actively participate in this ‘skinfluencer’ trend.”

courtesy Dr. Jessica G. Labadie

According to a review of social media’s impact on aesthetic medicine, use of social media by American adults increased from 5% in 2005 to 72% in 2020, and 77% of patients search for a physician online. The review’s authors cited YouTube as the most popular platform among adults and noted that social media ranks as the sixth top factor for a patient deciding whether to have a laser procedure.

Dr. Labadie, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said several factors should be considered when establishing and maintaining a social media presence, starting with personal ones. “Your followers are not your patients yet, and just because you may have thousands of followers does not necessarily mean that you’re busier in the clinic,” she said. “Be careful if you combine professional and personal accounts; be careful of those parasocial relationships that can form. Your followers tend to learn a lot about you. Posting can take a lot of time; it can take away from your clinical duties. Do you want to make your account private or public? There are pros and cons to both.”

Ethics also play a role. “Be transparent in your disclosure forms, especially if you’re posting ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of patients,” advised Dr. Labadie, who described herself as a social media minimalist. “Stay true to yourself in your posts, and always prioritize safety over posting.”

Don’t forget legal obligations. “Social media can facilitate a passive income, but make sure this isn’t impacting any conflicts of interest, and make sure that you meticulously follow any Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations,” she said. She also cautioned against violating intellectual property rights and making false claims about a product or procedure.

Deciding which platforms to use and what voice or tone to adopt requires some soul-searching. “What is your brand?” Dr. Labadie asked. “How do you want to portray yourself? Does your social media brand match your office brand? Does it match who you are as a provider and the type of patient you wish to attract? Would you prefer to have one collective social media presence as an office or multiple provider accounts?”

Being mindful of how your patients perceive and use social media in relation to their dermatologic concerns is also important. “What are your patients viewing on social media, and how is it affecting their decisions?” Dr. Labadie asked. “Are they coming in asking for something that is not right for what they need? At the end of the day, you are their doctor, and it’s your duty to treat the patients and not the trend.”

She encouraged dermatologists to “aim for high value and accurate posts coupled with high popularity and reach.” She added that “this is really the future of getting our research out there to the public. Academic notoriety is not enough. Our professional societies and skinfluencer colleagues need to get involved to help promote our expert research.”

Dr. Labadie reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — Posting on social media may not be your cup of tea, but in the opinion of Jessica G. Labadie, MD, avoiding a presence on platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or YouTube means missing an opportunity to educate patients about dermatologic procedures and to dispel misinformation from nonmedical influencers.

“Over the past 2 decades, there has been a surge in social media use,” Dr. Labadie, a dermatologist who practices in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, said at the Controversies & Conversations in Laser & Cosmetic Surgery symposium. “Most of our patients use social media to find their doctors, and it plays a role in how our patients form their decision about whether to have a cosmetic procedure or not. Doctors, especially dermatologists, continue to actively participate in this ‘skinfluencer’ trend.”

courtesy Dr. Jessica G. Labadie

According to a review of social media’s impact on aesthetic medicine, use of social media by American adults increased from 5% in 2005 to 72% in 2020, and 77% of patients search for a physician online. The review’s authors cited YouTube as the most popular platform among adults and noted that social media ranks as the sixth top factor for a patient deciding whether to have a laser procedure.

Dr. Labadie, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said several factors should be considered when establishing and maintaining a social media presence, starting with personal ones. “Your followers are not your patients yet, and just because you may have thousands of followers does not necessarily mean that you’re busier in the clinic,” she said. “Be careful if you combine professional and personal accounts; be careful of those parasocial relationships that can form. Your followers tend to learn a lot about you. Posting can take a lot of time; it can take away from your clinical duties. Do you want to make your account private or public? There are pros and cons to both.”

Ethics also play a role. “Be transparent in your disclosure forms, especially if you’re posting ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of patients,” advised Dr. Labadie, who described herself as a social media minimalist. “Stay true to yourself in your posts, and always prioritize safety over posting.”

Don’t forget legal obligations. “Social media can facilitate a passive income, but make sure this isn’t impacting any conflicts of interest, and make sure that you meticulously follow any Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations,” she said. She also cautioned against violating intellectual property rights and making false claims about a product or procedure.

Deciding which platforms to use and what voice or tone to adopt requires some soul-searching. “What is your brand?” Dr. Labadie asked. “How do you want to portray yourself? Does your social media brand match your office brand? Does it match who you are as a provider and the type of patient you wish to attract? Would you prefer to have one collective social media presence as an office or multiple provider accounts?”

Being mindful of how your patients perceive and use social media in relation to their dermatologic concerns is also important. “What are your patients viewing on social media, and how is it affecting their decisions?” Dr. Labadie asked. “Are they coming in asking for something that is not right for what they need? At the end of the day, you are their doctor, and it’s your duty to treat the patients and not the trend.”

She encouraged dermatologists to “aim for high value and accurate posts coupled with high popularity and reach.” She added that “this is really the future of getting our research out there to the public. Academic notoriety is not enough. Our professional societies and skinfluencer colleagues need to get involved to help promote our expert research.”

Dr. Labadie reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — Posting on social media may not be your cup of tea, but in the opinion of Jessica G. Labadie, MD, avoiding a presence on platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or YouTube means missing an opportunity to educate patients about dermatologic procedures and to dispel misinformation from nonmedical influencers.

“Over the past 2 decades, there has been a surge in social media use,” Dr. Labadie, a dermatologist who practices in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, said at the Controversies & Conversations in Laser & Cosmetic Surgery symposium. “Most of our patients use social media to find their doctors, and it plays a role in how our patients form their decision about whether to have a cosmetic procedure or not. Doctors, especially dermatologists, continue to actively participate in this ‘skinfluencer’ trend.”

courtesy Dr. Jessica G. Labadie

According to a review of social media’s impact on aesthetic medicine, use of social media by American adults increased from 5% in 2005 to 72% in 2020, and 77% of patients search for a physician online. The review’s authors cited YouTube as the most popular platform among adults and noted that social media ranks as the sixth top factor for a patient deciding whether to have a laser procedure.

Dr. Labadie, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said several factors should be considered when establishing and maintaining a social media presence, starting with personal ones. “Your followers are not your patients yet, and just because you may have thousands of followers does not necessarily mean that you’re busier in the clinic,” she said. “Be careful if you combine professional and personal accounts; be careful of those parasocial relationships that can form. Your followers tend to learn a lot about you. Posting can take a lot of time; it can take away from your clinical duties. Do you want to make your account private or public? There are pros and cons to both.”

Ethics also play a role. “Be transparent in your disclosure forms, especially if you’re posting ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of patients,” advised Dr. Labadie, who described herself as a social media minimalist. “Stay true to yourself in your posts, and always prioritize safety over posting.”

Don’t forget legal obligations. “Social media can facilitate a passive income, but make sure this isn’t impacting any conflicts of interest, and make sure that you meticulously follow any Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations,” she said. She also cautioned against violating intellectual property rights and making false claims about a product or procedure.

Deciding which platforms to use and what voice or tone to adopt requires some soul-searching. “What is your brand?” Dr. Labadie asked. “How do you want to portray yourself? Does your social media brand match your office brand? Does it match who you are as a provider and the type of patient you wish to attract? Would you prefer to have one collective social media presence as an office or multiple provider accounts?”

Being mindful of how your patients perceive and use social media in relation to their dermatologic concerns is also important. “What are your patients viewing on social media, and how is it affecting their decisions?” Dr. Labadie asked. “Are they coming in asking for something that is not right for what they need? At the end of the day, you are their doctor, and it’s your duty to treat the patients and not the trend.”

She encouraged dermatologists to “aim for high value and accurate posts coupled with high popularity and reach.” She added that “this is really the future of getting our research out there to the public. Academic notoriety is not enough. Our professional societies and skinfluencer colleagues need to get involved to help promote our expert research.”

Dr. Labadie reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Black children with vitiligo are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, including depression, suicidal ideation, and disruptive behavior disorders, than matched controls who did not have vitiligo, according to a case-control study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center, case-control study at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston on 327 Black children with vitiligo and 981 matched controls without vitiligo.
• The average age of participants was 11.7 years, and 62% were girls.
• The study outcome was the prevalence of psychiatric conditions and rates of treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or psychotherapy) initiation for those conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black children with vitiligo were more likely to be diagnosed with depression (odds ratio [OR], 3.63; P < .001), suicidal ideation (OR, 2.88; P = .005), disruptive behavior disorders (OR, 7.68; P < .001), eating disorders (OR, 15.22; P = .013), generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 2.61; P < .001), and substance abuse (OR, 2.67; P = .011).
• The likelihood of having a psychiatric comorbidity was not significantly different between children with segmental vitiligo and those with generalized vitiligo or between girls and boys.
• Among the patients with vitiligo and psychiatric comorbidities, treatment initiation rates were higher for depression (76.5%), disruptive behavior disorders (82.1%), and eating disorders (100%).
• Treatment initiation rates were lower in patients with vitiligo diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (55.3%) and substance abuse (61.5%). Treatment was not initiated in 14% patients with suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pediatric dermatologists have an important role in screening for psychiatric comorbidities, and implementation of appropriate screening tools while treating vitiligo is likely to have a bidirectional positive impact,” the authors wrote, adding: “By better understanding psychiatric comorbidities of African American children with vitiligo, dermatologists can be more aware of pediatric mental health needs and provide appropriate referrals.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Emily Strouphauer, BSA, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and was published online in JAAD International.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations were the retrospective design, small sample size, and heterogeneity in the control group.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Black children with vitiligo are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, including depression, suicidal ideation, and disruptive behavior disorders, than matched controls who did not have vitiligo, according to a case-control study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center, case-control study at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston on 327 Black children with vitiligo and 981 matched controls without vitiligo.
• The average age of participants was 11.7 years, and 62% were girls.
• The study outcome was the prevalence of psychiatric conditions and rates of treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or psychotherapy) initiation for those conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black children with vitiligo were more likely to be diagnosed with depression (odds ratio [OR], 3.63; P < .001), suicidal ideation (OR, 2.88; P = .005), disruptive behavior disorders (OR, 7.68; P < .001), eating disorders (OR, 15.22; P = .013), generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 2.61; P < .001), and substance abuse (OR, 2.67; P = .011).
• The likelihood of having a psychiatric comorbidity was not significantly different between children with segmental vitiligo and those with generalized vitiligo or between girls and boys.
• Among the patients with vitiligo and psychiatric comorbidities, treatment initiation rates were higher for depression (76.5%), disruptive behavior disorders (82.1%), and eating disorders (100%).
• Treatment initiation rates were lower in patients with vitiligo diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (55.3%) and substance abuse (61.5%). Treatment was not initiated in 14% patients with suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pediatric dermatologists have an important role in screening for psychiatric comorbidities, and implementation of appropriate screening tools while treating vitiligo is likely to have a bidirectional positive impact,” the authors wrote, adding: “By better understanding psychiatric comorbidities of African American children with vitiligo, dermatologists can be more aware of pediatric mental health needs and provide appropriate referrals.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Emily Strouphauer, BSA, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and was published online in JAAD International.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations were the retrospective design, small sample size, and heterogeneity in the control group.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Black children with vitiligo are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, including depression, suicidal ideation, and disruptive behavior disorders, than matched controls who did not have vitiligo, according to a case-control study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center, case-control study at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston on 327 Black children with vitiligo and 981 matched controls without vitiligo.
• The average age of participants was 11.7 years, and 62% were girls.
• The study outcome was the prevalence of psychiatric conditions and rates of treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or psychotherapy) initiation for those conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black children with vitiligo were more likely to be diagnosed with depression (odds ratio [OR], 3.63; P < .001), suicidal ideation (OR, 2.88; P = .005), disruptive behavior disorders (OR, 7.68; P < .001), eating disorders (OR, 15.22; P = .013), generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 2.61; P < .001), and substance abuse (OR, 2.67; P = .011).
• The likelihood of having a psychiatric comorbidity was not significantly different between children with segmental vitiligo and those with generalized vitiligo or between girls and boys.
• Among the patients with vitiligo and psychiatric comorbidities, treatment initiation rates were higher for depression (76.5%), disruptive behavior disorders (82.1%), and eating disorders (100%).
• Treatment initiation rates were lower in patients with vitiligo diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (55.3%) and substance abuse (61.5%). Treatment was not initiated in 14% patients with suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pediatric dermatologists have an important role in screening for psychiatric comorbidities, and implementation of appropriate screening tools while treating vitiligo is likely to have a bidirectional positive impact,” the authors wrote, adding: “By better understanding psychiatric comorbidities of African American children with vitiligo, dermatologists can be more aware of pediatric mental health needs and provide appropriate referrals.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Emily Strouphauer, BSA, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and was published online in JAAD International.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations were the retrospective design, small sample size, and heterogeneity in the control group.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mobile images may be reliable for assessing cutaneous neurofibroma (cNF) features in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), according to a crowd-sourced registry study that also suggests correlations between cNF burden and quality of life (QoL), particularly the impact of facial severity on emotional well-being.

METHODOLOGY:

• To learn more about the association of cNFs with QoL, pain, and itch in patients with this rare disease, researchers enrolled 1016 individuals aged 40 years and older with NF1 who had at least one cNF, from May 2021 to December 2023, after reaching out to patient-led or NF1 advocacy organizations in 13 countries, including the United States.
• Participants provided demographic data, detailed photographs, and saliva samples for genetic sequencing, with 583 participants (mean age, 51.7 years; 65.9% women) submitting high-quality photographs from seven body regions at the time of the study analysis.
• A subset of 50 participants also underwent whole-body imaging.
• Four researchers independently rated the photographs for various cNF features, including general severity, number, size, facial severity, and subtypes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Based on evaluations by NF1 specialists, the agreement between mobile and whole-body images was “substantial” (74%-88% agreement) for the number of cNFs, general severity, and facial severity. Agreement between self-reported numbers of cNFs and investigator-rated numbers based on photographs was “minimal to fair.”
• Female sex, the number of cNFs, severity of cNFs on the face, and globular cNFs were associated with worse QoL (based on Skindex scores); severity of cNFs on the face had the strongest impact on overall QoL (P < .001).
• An increasing number of cNFs and worsening facial severity were strongly correlated with higher emotion subdomain scores.
• A higher number of cNFs, more severe cNFs on the face, and larger cNFs were all slightly associated with increased itch and pain (P < .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“To develop effective therapeutics, meaningful clinical outcomes that are tied with improvement in QoL for persons with NF1 must be clearly defined,” the authors wrote. The results of this study, they added, “suggested the benefit of this crowd-sourced resource by identifying the features of cNFs with the greatest association with QoL and symptoms of pain and itch in persons with NF1, highlighting new intervention strategies and features to target to most improve QoL in NF1.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michelle Jade Lin, BS, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, California, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included only a small number of individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups and did not capture ethnicity information, which could have provided further insights into disease impact across different demographics.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Bloomberg Family Foundation. Ms. Lin reported support from the Stanford Medical Scholars Research Program. Three authors reported personal fees or grants outside this work. Other authors reported no competing interests.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mobile images may be reliable for assessing cutaneous neurofibroma (cNF) features in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), according to a crowd-sourced registry study that also suggests correlations between cNF burden and quality of life (QoL), particularly the impact of facial severity on emotional well-being.

METHODOLOGY:

• To learn more about the association of cNFs with QoL, pain, and itch in patients with this rare disease, researchers enrolled 1016 individuals aged 40 years and older with NF1 who had at least one cNF, from May 2021 to December 2023, after reaching out to patient-led or NF1 advocacy organizations in 13 countries, including the United States.
• Participants provided demographic data, detailed photographs, and saliva samples for genetic sequencing, with 583 participants (mean age, 51.7 years; 65.9% women) submitting high-quality photographs from seven body regions at the time of the study analysis.
• A subset of 50 participants also underwent whole-body imaging.
• Four researchers independently rated the photographs for various cNF features, including general severity, number, size, facial severity, and subtypes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Based on evaluations by NF1 specialists, the agreement between mobile and whole-body images was “substantial” (74%-88% agreement) for the number of cNFs, general severity, and facial severity. Agreement between self-reported numbers of cNFs and investigator-rated numbers based on photographs was “minimal to fair.”
• Female sex, the number of cNFs, severity of cNFs on the face, and globular cNFs were associated with worse QoL (based on Skindex scores); severity of cNFs on the face had the strongest impact on overall QoL (P < .001).
• An increasing number of cNFs and worsening facial severity were strongly correlated with higher emotion subdomain scores.
• A higher number of cNFs, more severe cNFs on the face, and larger cNFs were all slightly associated with increased itch and pain (P < .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“To develop effective therapeutics, meaningful clinical outcomes that are tied with improvement in QoL for persons with NF1 must be clearly defined,” the authors wrote. The results of this study, they added, “suggested the benefit of this crowd-sourced resource by identifying the features of cNFs with the greatest association with QoL and symptoms of pain and itch in persons with NF1, highlighting new intervention strategies and features to target to most improve QoL in NF1.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michelle Jade Lin, BS, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, California, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included only a small number of individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups and did not capture ethnicity information, which could have provided further insights into disease impact across different demographics.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Bloomberg Family Foundation. Ms. Lin reported support from the Stanford Medical Scholars Research Program. Three authors reported personal fees or grants outside this work. Other authors reported no competing interests.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mobile images may be reliable for assessing cutaneous neurofibroma (cNF) features in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), according to a crowd-sourced registry study that also suggests correlations between cNF burden and quality of life (QoL), particularly the impact of facial severity on emotional well-being.

METHODOLOGY:

• To learn more about the association of cNFs with QoL, pain, and itch in patients with this rare disease, researchers enrolled 1016 individuals aged 40 years and older with NF1 who had at least one cNF, from May 2021 to December 2023, after reaching out to patient-led or NF1 advocacy organizations in 13 countries, including the United States.
• Participants provided demographic data, detailed photographs, and saliva samples for genetic sequencing, with 583 participants (mean age, 51.7 years; 65.9% women) submitting high-quality photographs from seven body regions at the time of the study analysis.
• A subset of 50 participants also underwent whole-body imaging.
• Four researchers independently rated the photographs for various cNF features, including general severity, number, size, facial severity, and subtypes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Based on evaluations by NF1 specialists, the agreement between mobile and whole-body images was “substantial” (74%-88% agreement) for the number of cNFs, general severity, and facial severity. Agreement between self-reported numbers of cNFs and investigator-rated numbers based on photographs was “minimal to fair.”
• Female sex, the number of cNFs, severity of cNFs on the face, and globular cNFs were associated with worse QoL (based on Skindex scores); severity of cNFs on the face had the strongest impact on overall QoL (P < .001).
• An increasing number of cNFs and worsening facial severity were strongly correlated with higher emotion subdomain scores.
• A higher number of cNFs, more severe cNFs on the face, and larger cNFs were all slightly associated with increased itch and pain (P < .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“To develop effective therapeutics, meaningful clinical outcomes that are tied with improvement in QoL for persons with NF1 must be clearly defined,” the authors wrote. The results of this study, they added, “suggested the benefit of this crowd-sourced resource by identifying the features of cNFs with the greatest association with QoL and symptoms of pain and itch in persons with NF1, highlighting new intervention strategies and features to target to most improve QoL in NF1.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michelle Jade Lin, BS, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, California, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included only a small number of individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups and did not capture ethnicity information, which could have provided further insights into disease impact across different demographics.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Bloomberg Family Foundation. Ms. Lin reported support from the Stanford Medical Scholars Research Program. Three authors reported personal fees or grants outside this work. Other authors reported no competing interests.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.